All things Middle East related

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by punch it in

It is simple G one. It has nothing to do with Trump. The Republican party (not the people but the lawmakers) knew and know he is a moron. However, his base can still vote for whoever they want. If Mitch McConnell talks smack about Trump guess what? He loses his job. Same can be said for any senator, congressmen, governor, mayor, school superintendent- he has absolutely polarized it all. You need to kiss his ass to keep or be put in a position of power if you are a Republican on any ticket anywhere for anything. If you do not kiss his ass he will vilify you to his sheep and they will vote you out. It is truly a cult of personality. One like this country has never seen. Why? Because that is normally not how a democracy works. It is how an autocracy works. It is dangerous. It is counter productive. It is un American. But maga people don’t give a fuck about any of that. They just want their Daddy to be happy.
In a nutshell Trump controls nothing but his base does. Not enough thank God. But when you split the country in half it is plenty to control one side. The right side.

Thanks, I guess I have to much faith in Americans to see threw the BS...................but then there is chico.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by punch it in

I..... But after Trump the right just needs to stfu for a few years because nobody has ever lied or deceived the American people like that ball bag just did.

You are lumping in Never-Trumpers in this? After 6 years of criticizing the worst President in my lifetime, I think there is nothing wrong with criticizing the 2d worst President in my life time.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Agreed Biden is pretty awful.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by nonniey

You are lumping in Never-Trumpers in this? After 6 years of criticizing the worst President in my lifetime, I think I'm there is nothing wrong with criticizing the 2d worst President in my life time.

First of all it has been a hot minute with Biden. Second of all even if I grant you that he is in second place - which im not yet - the drop off between first and second is light years away.

[sdskinsfan2001]

No more wars unless 100% absolutely necessary and/or unpreventable. This is so sad.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/30000-ame...post-9-11-wars

"A staggering 30,177 American active military personnel and veterans involved in post-9/11 wars are estimated to have died by suicide – a figure at least four times greater than the 7,057 service members who were killed in combat during that time, a new research paper says."

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

No more wars unless 100% absolutely necessary and/or unpreventable. This is so sad.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/30000-ame...post-9-11-wars

"A staggering 30,177 American active military personnel and veterans involved in post-9/11 wars are estimated to have died by suicide – a figure at least four times greater than the 7,057 service members who were killed in combat during that time, a new research paper says."

You do remember why we were in Afghanistan, right? It wasn't a war of choice and almost certainly not really over.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by nonniey

You do remember why we were in Afghanistan, right? It wasn't a war of choice and almost certainly not really over.

This thread is All Things ME Related. Not all things Afghanistan related.

This article isn't solely about Afghanistan.

Although I think we stayed there way too long, even preceding the Trump or Biden administration, but we will likely never agree on that particular subject.

That's a staggering number of suicides.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by nonniey

You do remember why we were in Afghanistan, right? It wasn't a war of choice and almost certainly not really over.

It kind of was a war of choice. The Taliban back in 2002 volunteered to a. give up power and b. hand over Osama Bin Laden we said no to both with out any thought. Peace isn't good for profits

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

It kind of was a war of choice. The Taliban back in 2002 volunteered to a. give up power and b. hand over Osama Bin Laden we said no to both with out any thought. Peace isn't good for profits

I agree with the Peace statement but we have to remember we were in Afghanistan before 9/11 . We were funding and helping the Afghan Freedom fighters fighting Russia in the 80's

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

It kind of was a war of choice. The Taliban back in 2002 volunteered to a. give up power and b. hand over Osama Bin Laden we said no to both with out any thought. Peace isn't good for profits

Uh no - that is the exact opposite of what happened. They emphatically refused to give him up and certainly didn't volunteer to give up power. Where the heck are you getting your information? Oh and it was 2001.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Uh no - that is the exact opposite of what happened. They emphatically refused to give him up and certainly didn't volunteer to give up power. Where the heck are you getting your information? Oh and it was 2001.

They offered Bush him in exchange for a halt to the bombing and also we needed to provide proof he was responsible. Bush said we do not negotiate with terrorists and refused to discuss their terms.

[punch it in]

https://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te....t15-story.html

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by punch it in

https://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te....t15-story.html

Miss this? "....Bush rejected any negotiations as a Taliban leader suggested the Afghan government would be willing to discuss surrendering bin Laden to a third country if the United States provided evidence of his guilt and stopped bombing....."

At no point did the Taliban ever offer him up to the United States and in fact they didn't even offer him up to a 3rd party. They wanted to negotiate potentially offering him up to a 3rd party that wasn't the United States. So I stand by my assertion the Taliban emphatically rejected our demands for Bin Laden.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Miss this? "....Bush rejected any negotiations as a Taliban leader suggested the Afghan government would be willing to discuss surrendering bin Laden to a third country if the United States provided evidence of his guilt and stopped bombing....."

At no point did the Taliban ever offer him up to the United States and in fact they didn't even offer him up to a 3rd party. They wanted to negotiate potentially offering him up to a 3rd party that wasn't the United States. So I stand by my assertion the Taliban emphatically rejected our demands for Bin Laden.

Not at all LOL. Sounds like exactly what i said. And what Baltimore said. Re read Baltimores post. He was right. You were wrong.
Nobody said handing him over to the US.
Baltimore said that we said no …….”without any thought”. AKA ….would not negotiate or even listen to their idea which involved handing Bin Laden over to a third country.

If you refuse to negotiate or even listen how is that not refusing? You are just mincing words. Ya jumped all over his post but he is ultimately right.

[punch it in]

Btw im not saying Bush should or shouldn’t have negotiated with them. Im just saying that he did refuse to listen to offers about it. Which is what Baltimore said. As for relinquishing power im not sure what he meant there.