What stupid shit has Trump done today?
- Thread starter Yossarian
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
If only you'd live up to the standards you set for others
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
Good grief.
not-bono-ever
meh
anyway. Looks like trump is being run as a mouthpiece by the generals now- moar troops and moar fun and games in Afghanistan for the foreseeable. keeps everyone happy, keeps the whole military industrial edifice funded. Its like no one remembers recent military defeats and has taken any notice of how things play out, Any of these fuckers read war of the flea?
Take this C&P from Taber '65 and replaced all references to nam with ones relating to 'ganistan
“The choices open to Washington in Viet Nam appear obvious. Unless the dissident Vietnamese population can be persuaded to embrace a solution acceptable to the United States (certainly a forlorn hope), the alternatives are: (1) to wage a relentless, full-scale war of subjugation against the Vietnamese people, with the aid of such Vietnamese allies as remain available; (2) seek a solution acceptable to the Vietnamese people, a step that would clearly entail negotiating with the Viet Cong; (3) quit the field and let the Vietnamese work out their own solution.
A fourth possibility does exist. Essentially it is a monstrous variation of the first. The United States can change the character of the war, or its apparent character, by expanding it; that is, by taking arms against Hanoi and, inevitably, against China. To do so, with the right kind of window dressing, could conceivably be justified in the minds of the American people and perhaps of their allies despite the tremendous expense and risk involved, where a losing war in the limited theater of South Viet Nam cannot be justified. Under cover of a general war, the two Viet Nams could, perhaps, be occupied and put under martial law, and the communist movement suppressed by overwhelmingly superior military force.
But then what? A southeast Asia held by American troops in the overwhelming numbers that would be required (and it would have to be all of Southeast Asia, not merely Viet Nam) would be a burden almost beyond endurance for the American economy and the American electorate, and would be of no conceivable use under such conditions except as a base for the ensuing war against China. War to what end? It staggers the imagination to think of the vast, interminable, and profitless conflict that would ensue, even assuming that it were confined to Asia–and we have no such assurance. The bloody, costly Korean war would appear as a child’s game by comparison.”
Take this C&P from Taber '65 and replaced all references to nam with ones relating to 'ganistan
“The choices open to Washington in Viet Nam appear obvious. Unless the dissident Vietnamese population can be persuaded to embrace a solution acceptable to the United States (certainly a forlorn hope), the alternatives are: (1) to wage a relentless, full-scale war of subjugation against the Vietnamese people, with the aid of such Vietnamese allies as remain available; (2) seek a solution acceptable to the Vietnamese people, a step that would clearly entail negotiating with the Viet Cong; (3) quit the field and let the Vietnamese work out their own solution.
A fourth possibility does exist. Essentially it is a monstrous variation of the first. The United States can change the character of the war, or its apparent character, by expanding it; that is, by taking arms against Hanoi and, inevitably, against China. To do so, with the right kind of window dressing, could conceivably be justified in the minds of the American people and perhaps of their allies despite the tremendous expense and risk involved, where a losing war in the limited theater of South Viet Nam cannot be justified. Under cover of a general war, the two Viet Nams could, perhaps, be occupied and put under martial law, and the communist movement suppressed by overwhelmingly superior military force.
But then what? A southeast Asia held by American troops in the overwhelming numbers that would be required (and it would have to be all of Southeast Asia, not merely Viet Nam) would be a burden almost beyond endurance for the American economy and the American electorate, and would be of no conceivable use under such conditions except as a base for the ensuing war against China. War to what end? It staggers the imagination to think of the vast, interminable, and profitless conflict that would ensue, even assuming that it were confined to Asia–and we have no such assurance. The bloody, costly Korean war would appear as a child’s game by comparison.”
CrabbedOne
Walking sideways snippily
Trump's now escalated troop deployments in every major theatre Obama was involved in: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen. The numbers are fairly small (battalions not divisions) and often even less transparent than under Obama. Several dark little wars getting more US resources as well. We had to anticipate this given Trump's apparently heartfelt very belligerent stance on the GWOT. What's perhaps a little surprising is the degree of continuity with Obama despite Trump's constant criticism in this area. Trump perhaps has less of grip on the Pentagon's leash but there's very little difference just incremental changes. The same could be said of Obama after Bush of course. Another sly campaigner that made both dovish and hawkish noises allowing fans to hear what they wanted to hear. The big difference isn't military but rather Trump's neglect of and apparent contempt for diplomacy. That's quite likely to lead to Trump stumbling into more wars the Pentagon actually wants to avoid.
ohmyliver
poppin' like a cork
Erik Prince is pitching for the US to use his mercenaries in 'Gaaan. Because I'd imagine the private army of a 'Christian' neo-feudal Randist oligark is just the ticket for a country which has resisted invasion by pretty much every invader for the last couple of thousand years.
maomao
普費斯
Who were those people? I only remember one CTer and one neo nazi nutter saying anything like that. Can you name or quote any of them?
And Trumps opponent has already stated that she would have been more hawkish in Syria so it's all pretty relative anyway.
Also, your sentence doesn't actually make sense (what region?).
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
That describes Trump. 'Beyond incompetent'.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
Funny how Evangelicals weren't saying that when Obama or Clinton was President.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Divine right of kinks.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
A new meaning to doubling down
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Prince's plan is they'll die laughing
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
The ft reported all of Trump's "new" plan on 21 july
ohmyliver
poppin' like a cork
I dunno, Blackwater did some pretty fucked up shit in Iraq, I think it would result in more death, and less laughter. And still not conquer Afghanistan.
Bringing Back Mercenaries, In A Big Way
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It's the hubris they'll be laughing at and nemesis won't be far behind. Fallujah will be by comparison a fond memory.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Looks like the biscuit Peek Frean rejected from this collection, on grounds of it being too bestial:
Animal cracker - Wikipedia
petee
no gods, no malarkey
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
All the better to distract from a failed Presidency.
New plan.....same old thing, some more undefined number of troops at some point apparently, but now India is supposed to help somehow.
And this amazing statement. Gee, this Afghanistan thing is hard.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Poll
