Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
kingkongone

Triumph is going to destroy the USA :(

Recommended Posts

another nugget just dropped about Manafort's contact with Russian connections in the last hour.

Fucking dumbass had unsecured Adobe documents being him down LOL fuck tard 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Mercer

 

Agreed, the 2003 invasion was a disaster and caused a massive shitfight, thought I was pretty clear in saying that in my posts. No disagreement there and I'd also add the installation of Reza Pahlavi, blank cheques to Israel/KSA, etc. etc. etc. My response in that paragraph was more directed to @Brinkclaim that the US fucked the region to start with. It didn't, the region has been messy since day dot. I don't think the US ever wanted a permanent presence in Iraq/Syria. In regards to this current deployment, they don't want an organisation like ISIS gaining strength in any way. They also want Assad out but are doing very little on that front. At this point, they don't want organisations committed to the destruction of the USA to grow in strength, that being the primary aim of the deployment. The secondary aim is to block Iran and Russia from making big strategic gains.

 

Regards 2003, that was a text book case of imposing your will on another people, no doubt about that. And if that invasion hadn't have taken place, there is a very high chance that ISIS/AQ would never have risen to prominence anything like they did over the last 10 years. That invasion was badly conceived, badly conducted and badly instituted. Everything around it was a disaster. I've worked with numerous people directly responsible for the big calls of the intelligence and decision making and not one of them is proud of it. I have some of that  materialon record and am happy to direct you to it if you want to discuss via direct message.

 

The point about energy was also more a response to Brink.

 

I think the way you characterise Post-Soviet Afghanistan and security deployments in general as lacking a little in the nuances of operational and tactical realities. And it shouldn't be expected that everyone should be full boot on that kind of stuff. I'm an ex-soldier that studied and moved into the policy/strategy world after discharging, which is why I claim to have an understanding of this kind of stuff.

 

The US occupied Afghanistan post-2001 and Iraq post-2003. However, the occupation of Iraq stopped when no SOFA could be negotiated in 2010 and the subsequent complete withdrawal in 2011. The current deployment was at the REQUEST of the IRaqi govt that lost control of a major part of its territory, it's not an occupation at all (or even reminiscent of it, to be honest). The work in Syria is very small and focused on combat operations and intelligence collecting on terror groups (yes, there were operations previously supporting forces opposing Assad and intel ops continue regards Iran and Russia). The US is not attacking the Syrian state - truth be told, Assad is likely to be very happy the US did what they did as with the US focusing on ISIS/AQ, Assad was able to commit greater resources against fighting the other groups looking to overthrow him. That's a pretty simplistic way to put things, but just trying to put into perspective what the US deployment is (not an occupation) and why it's there (at request of one govt and COIN ops against Islamist orgs).

 

There's also a very wide gulf between occupation of a country - using post-Soviet Afghanistan as your example - and supporting a weak govt or assisting in building the capacity of a failed state. Take a look at the UN lead deployment to Somalia when it collapsed (ok, things went to shit after Clinton pulled the troops/blackhawk down). There is a lot that the US and partnering states can do in these situations, short of occupying a whole country. It can be anything from simply providing diplomatic support, to capital, to expertise, to intelligence and logistics, to combat support, to training, etc. etc. Many of these things require troop deployments but none of it is akin to punching a nation in the face. The current deployment in Afghanistan is in support of the current Afghani govt - without the US forces there that country would no doubt collapse again and come under the Taliban - the same people that supported bin Laden and harbored him post-9/11.

 

Is it worth the US keeping troops in Afghanistan to stop it collapsing? Well, that becomes a discussion about risk, cost/benefit, etc. One thing is for sure, the way Trump discussed the situation has no relationship to reality, in the slightest.

 

Regards the strategic deployments like that in Japan, Bahrain, Europe, etc. There are a lot of variables in that to consider - arguably, the most important one is what would happen if the US left. The standard response to that is a) the US would find it very hard to retain allies and partners around the world after throwing Japan, ROK, Taiwan, Australia, KSA, Israel, Germany, etc. under the bus, because, b) China would be empowered to dominate East Asia, Iran would be empowered to dominate the M/E and Russia would be encouraged to destabilise Europe. None of these outcomes, in and of themselves, are in the interests of the US.

 

Of course, then we have the discussion what the US national interests are. And if we're going to discuss that, I need to go get some beer.

Edited by Hua Guofang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, forgot to add the following paragraph after I talked about the occupation of Iraq:

 

The occupation of Afghanistan has been in draw down since the Obama administration. There are only about 10,000 troops there now (might have to check that number) and they are doing COIN ops against the Taliban and ISIS, which are support operations for the Afghani govt. They are also still training and building capacity for the Afghani national military and police. It hasn't been an occupation for a long time and a very significant element of the population would prefer the US to remain in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the more on topic post about Trump appearing to stumble into this major military/foreign policy shift. Personally I suspect he's got more nefarious intent, and with recent statements like "Russia was justified in invading Afganistan" and other propaganda straight from Putin's playbook I have grown even more suspicious recently.

 

While he's not doing this for the "right" reasons in my book, I still can't automatically "orange man bad" this move because ultimately this is exactly what I wanted in the first place. This is EEEugeee, I mean like major league good stuff here. Again, I'm not against using the military, I just don't feel justified sending an 18 year old over there to get blown up solving Iraq/Syrias problems with internal political violence when they signed up to defend this country and our allies, not a country that wouldn't shed a drop of blood for  us if we needed it, if that makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with a lot of that, especially the sentiment. However, the current deployment to Iraq/Syria wasn’t really to help them out, it was to stop ISIS - an org that wants to attack the US - from becoming powerful enough to harm the US. I think the first question to ask, is whether that aim has been achieved. Second question would be: what has occurred in the meantime, and the answer to that would be Iran and Russia. The obvious questions flow from there, all regards the US national interest and how best to achieve them. 

 

My fucking jaw dropped when I saw Trump saying that the USSR invaded Afghanistan because of terrorism and that it was justified. He is either clueless or without any moral compass at all. 

 

Agree that you can’t hate what he does just because it’s him doing it. I fully support a tough line on fairness of trade/investment with China (not sure if tariffs are the answer though). I also fully supported the talks with North Korea (the content and outcome of those talks has been poor so far though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gut tells me that Trump will call a national emergency and it will be a turning point in his presidency. Not sure which direction but an inflection none the less n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Agreed, and that's also good, enemies are on high alert/best behavior. lol

Edited by Mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

Gut tells me that Trump will call a national emergency and it will be a turning point in his presidency. Not sure which direction but an inflection none the less n

Lol, guess my gut feeling was just gas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 7:17 PM, Hua Guofang said:

@Mercer

 

Agreed, the 2003 invasion was a disaster and caused a massive shitfight, thought I was pretty clear in saying that in my posts. No disagreement there and I'd also add the installation of Reza Pahlavi, blank cheques to Israel/KSA, etc. etc. etc. My response in that paragraph was more directed to @Brinkclaim that the US fucked the region to start with. It didn't, the region has been messy since day dot. I don't think the US ever wanted a permanent presence in Iraq/Syria. In regards to this current deployment, they don't want an organisation like ISIS gaining strength in any way. They also want Assad out but are doing very little on that front. At this point, they don't want organisations committed to the destruction of the USA to grow in strength, that being the primary aim of the deployment. The secondary aim is to block Iran and Russia from making big strategic gains.

 

Regards 2003, that was a text book case of imposing your will on another people, no doubt about that. And if that invasion hadn't have taken place, there is a very high chance that ISIS/AQ would never have risen to prominence anything like they did over the last 10 years. That invasion was badly conceived, badly conducted and badly instituted. Everything around it was a disaster. I've worked with numerous people directly responsible for the big calls of the intelligence and decision making and not one of them is proud of it. I have some of that  materialon record and am happy to direct you to it if you want to discuss via direct message.

 

The point about energy was also more a response to Brink.

 

I think the way you characterise Post-Soviet Afghanistan and security deployments in general as lacking a little in the nuances of operational and tactical realities. And it shouldn't be expected that everyone should be full boot on that kind of stuff. I'm an ex-soldier that studied and moved into the policy/strategy world after discharging, which is why I claim to have an understanding of this kind of stuff.

 

The US occupied Afghanistan post-2001 and Iraq post-2003. However, the occupation of Iraq stopped when no SOFA could be negotiated in 2010 and the subsequent complete withdrawal in 2011. The current deployment was at the REQUEST of the IRaqi govt that lost control of a major part of its territory, it's not an occupation at all (or even reminiscent of it, to be honest). The work in Syria is very small and focused on combat operations and intelligence collecting on terror groups (yes, there were operations previously supporting forces opposing Assad and intel ops continue regards Iran and Russia). The US is not attacking the Syrian state - truth be told, Assad is likely to be very happy the US did what they did as with the US focusing on ISIS/AQ, Assad was able to commit greater resources against fighting the other groups looking to overthrow him. That's a pretty simplistic way to put things, but just trying to put into perspective what the US deployment is (not an occupation) and why it's there (at request of one govt and COIN ops against Islamist orgs).

 

There's also a very wide gulf between occupation of a country - using post-Soviet Afghanistan as your example - and supporting a weak govt or assisting in building the capacity of a failed state. Take a look at the UN lead deployment to Somalia when it collapsed (ok, things went to shit after Clinton pulled the troops/blackhawk down). There is a lot that the US and partnering states can do in these situations, short of occupying a whole country. It can be anything from simply providing diplomatic support, to capital, to expertise, to intelligence and logistics, to combat support, to training, etc. etc. Many of these things require troop deployments but none of it is akin to punching a nation in the face. The current deployment in Afghanistan is in support of the current Afghani govt - without the US forces there that country would no doubt collapse again and come under the Taliban - the same people that supported bin Laden and harbored him post-9/11.

 

Is it worth the US keeping troops in Afghanistan to stop it collapsing? Well, that becomes a discussion about risk, cost/benefit, etc. One thing is for sure, the way Trump discussed the situation has no relationship to reality, in the slightest.

 

Regards the strategic deployments like that in Japan, Bahrain, Europe, etc. There are a lot of variables in that to consider - arguably, the most important one is what would happen if the US left. The standard response to that is a) the US would find it very hard to retain allies and partners around the world after throwing Japan, ROK, Taiwan, Australia, KSA, Israel, Germany, etc. under the bus, because, b) China would be empowered to dominate East Asia, Iran would be empowered to dominate the M/E and Russia would be encouraged to destabilise Europe. None of these outcomes, in and of themselves, are in the interests of the US.

 

Of course, then we have the discussion what the US national interests are. And if we're going to discuss that, I need to go get some beer.

I wasn't really claiming that the US was the cause of instability in the region, I was just mentioning that we certainly had a role in how the region operates currently. 

Other than that, very good points: I certainly gained a bit more perspective on the situation. It's definitely a tricky situation regardless of how you look at it, with religion being the root of many problems that seem to be arising (maybe less of a root and more of an excuse), theres not really a clear-cut solution to a centuries old battle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not pro Trump, but not into Pelosi either (she strikes me as Hillary2 in a scarecrow's body).  As such, enjoying the tit for tat.  Thought it was kind of foul of her to try to cancel the State of The Union (even though wouldn't watch), but then Trump takes her plane, lolz, take that bitch!

 

On other hand, have also said during past shutdowns what a job to have as politicians.  They work for us, in theory.  Only job I can think of where you can say hey, we didn't get the job done, but let's take a recess along with our pay and shit.  And people tolerate it!  Normal work world don't work like that.  Shit, you go to your job and say hey boss, didn't get shit accomplished today because me and coworker don't get along and you'll find 2 asses on the curb without pay or a job.

 

But yeah, petty and wasteful infighting, shitty, but amusing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, One Man Banned said:

They work for us, in theory. 

 

The only thing you can count on is people work towards serving their self interests, most of the time it's in a non-destructive manner, but it can also come at the expense of others. Sure, we do have free will as humans, and occasionally some of us do stuff that is truly altruistic but hat isn't the norm. Breaking this myth that they are helping us, more than they're helping themselves is tougher than breaking self destructive religious beliefs.

 

They work for your vote, along with the rest of the fickle crowd's vote. Profiting from, and manipulating our collective ignorance on a multitude of subjects the vast majority of voters are unqualified to judge for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand that most of these politicians do not represent my interests, nor can they satisy everyone.  Point is, we choose them and they get paid off our money, kind of makes us their boss, and to sit around with your dick in your hand collecting a fat check to not accomplish anything at all is bullshit.  

 

Also re: the above, while the vast majority of voters may be unqualified to judge, the unfortunate fact is that many of those politicians are equally unqualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, One Man Banned said:

Not pro Trump, but not into Pelosi either (she strikes me as Hillary2 in a scarecrow's body).  As such, enjoying the tit for tat.  Thought it was kind of foul of her to try to cancel the State of The Union (even though wouldn't watch), but then Trump takes her plane, lolz, take that bitch!

 

On other hand, have also said during past shutdowns what a job to have as politicians.  They work for us, in theory.  Only job I can think of where you can say hey, we didn't get the job done, but let's take a recess along with our pay and shit.  And people tolerate it!  Normal work world don't work like that.  Shit, you go to your job and say hey boss, didn't get shit accomplished today because me and coworker don't get along and you'll find 2 asses on the curb without pay or a job.

 

But yeah, petty and wasteful infighting, shitty, but amusing.

 

He waited until they were all in the bus en route to the airport to pull the rug out. Master level troll 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the government and the rich want the poor and middle class to fight amongst themselves to keep power

 

once the lower classes realize that we outnumber those at the top of the hierarchy, it's game over man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kults said:

He waited until they were all in the bus en route to the airport to pull the rug out. Master level troll 😂

Then his wife hops on a flight to florida.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mn1_fuckos said:

Then his wife hops on a flight to florida.

 

 

Can’t make that shit up 🤣 

 

TBH he can give his state of the union elsewhere it’s really just symbolic more than anything. On the other hand, wtf are House of Reps doing going overseas? Aren’t they meant to, you know.. represent the people domestically?  They likely just wanted to go to that globalist summit for the Uber rich in Davos next week. Oops! They’re grounded!! In every sense of the word lol

Edited by Kults

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit made me laugh.  

I'm not happy with politicians, but currently I was at least entertained.  

I'd like Trump to lock/block her out of her office like George Costanza.  

I also had the recent thought that Ann Coulter vs Nancy Pelosi would be a dope fight to see.

  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×