Getting the Euros to get serious about NATO as opposed to leaching off the US for the alternate funding of their welfare states is a side benefit of this sad mess, but I refuse to give anyone in DC for the past 20 years the intellectual credit for organizing such a scheme….there is an old saying along the lines of “Never attribute to malice that which can first be attributed to incompetence”
Getting the Euros to get serious about NATO as opposed to leaching off the US for the alternate funding of their welfare states is a side benefit of this sad mess, but I refuse to give anyone in DC for the past 20 years the intellectual credit for organizing such a scheme….there is an old saying along the lines of “Never attribute to malice that which can first be attributed to incompetence”
President Trump did not "surrender" to the Taliban. He had a plan that they had to meet before our troops would leave. Biden of course messed the plan up totally.
but he didn't stick at all with the withdrawal plan and instead biden was the one who surrendered. Pompeo made an exit plan that would have kept us forces safe along with our equipment
You seem really infatuated with Trump's testicles. You've mentioned them like 3 times now.
BTW, Trump wasn't interested in perpetuating our loses in the middle east. His angle always appeared to be the same no matter the situation: how to make the best deal out of any situation. Not a bad tact, but doesn't always parlay so cleanly within the channels of government bureaucracy. IMO "surrender" and his "balls" had nothing to do with it.
I would argue that a Taliban surrender never happened (post your source, if you like)... nor did the solution called Operation Warp Speed get done what it was supposed to get done. The only thing OWS accomplished was sending us $6-7T dollars deeper into debt...while compromising most people's natural immune systems with experimental drugs. IMO, the best deal Trump could have made on behalf of the American people would have been to fire Fauchi. He couldn't even cut through that red tape.
On the other hand, if his real goal was to enrich global oligarchs and contribute to a global collapse in population and gdp in his last year in office, then he succeeded in delivering that deal fabulously.
Oxford Languages definition of surrender: "cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority".
You must have created your own defintion of surrender. I'll go by a more the above, more commonly accepted definition that includes the key element of "submit[ing] to their authority". I would argue that when you are an invading or occuppying military presence within a soverign country, you aren't ever submitting to that countries authority--even if you leave. This is no differnent than the U.S. Vietnam war troop withdrawl from any locations within Vietnam. We admittedly left, but we never surrendered to their "authority". If you don't think so, then I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever of a "surrender" agreement signed by the U.S. military to the North Vietnamese--ever. More to your original point, since the Taliban has no country and has never been recognized as the leaders of Afghanistan, I would also argue any "agreement" for U.S. "surrender" is a complete fabrication by either you, or the press (or both). In fact, according to Franz J. Marty, writing on Feb.01,2021 in The Diplomat: "On February 29, 2020, the United States and the Taliban — after having been at war for over 19 years — signed the historic Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan. The agreement stipulates that the Taliban will prevent anyone from using Afghan soil to threaten the United States and their allies and enter into negotiations with other Afghan sides to forge an Afghanistan that is also at peace with itself. In return, the U.S. promised to withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan". Not one word of a U.S. military "surrender" is mentioned in that agreement. So, basically, in Feb. 2020, Trump got the U.S. everything he wanted from the Taliban in this written agreement while having Afghanistan and the Taliban agree to peacefully settle their own civil war disputes. Of course, he had no authority to enforce the latter, and couldn't have cared less --IMO. It was the first part of the agreement he was after so they he could start pulling military forces out on the rationale that there was no longer a reason for U.S. military to be there. If you want to call that a "surrender", then you're certainly entitled to your own, personal delusion. I certainly don't buy it. In fact, even though I'm no fan, Biden's failed pullout of the last remaining troops from Afghanistan on August 26, 2021 (similar, but worse than Vietnam) did not amount to a "surrender". It was simply a colossal strategic failure by our U.S. military to safely exit military personnel from continued civil war torn Afghanistan which resulted in the needless deaths of 13 U.S. service members.
Getting the Euros to get serious about NATO as opposed to leaching off the US for the alternate funding of their welfare states is a side benefit of this sad mess, but I refuse to give anyone in DC for the past 20 years the intellectual credit for organizing such a scheme….there is an old saying along the lines of “Never attribute to malice that which can first be attributed to incompetence”
President Trump did not "surrender" to the Taliban. He had a plan that they had to meet before our troops would leave. Biden of course messed the plan up totally.
but he didn't stick at all with the withdrawal plan and instead biden was the one who surrendered. Pompeo made an exit plan that would have kept us forces safe along with our equipment
You seem really infatuated with Trump's testicles. You've mentioned them like 3 times now.
BTW, Trump wasn't interested in perpetuating our loses in the middle east. His angle always appeared to be the same no matter the situation: how to make the best deal out of any situation. Not a bad tact, but doesn't always parlay so cleanly within the channels of government bureaucracy. IMO "surrender" and his "balls" had nothing to do with it.
I would argue that a Taliban surrender never happened (post your source, if you like)... nor did the solution called Operation Warp Speed get done what it was supposed to get done. The only thing OWS accomplished was sending us $6-7T dollars deeper into debt...while compromising most people's natural immune systems with experimental drugs. IMO, the best deal Trump could have made on behalf of the American people would have been to fire Fauchi. He couldn't even cut through that red tape.
On the other hand, if his real goal was to enrich global oligarchs and contribute to a global collapse in population and gdp in his last year in office, then he succeeded in delivering that deal fabulously.
called in short "THE GREAT RESET "
That idea involves the notion of rational planning and foresight. IMO that gives way too much credit where credit is not due.
In short, I call it idiocracy.
Oxford Languages definition of surrender: "cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority".
You must have created your own defintion of surrender. I'll go by a more the above, more commonly accepted definition that includes the key element of "submit[ing] to their authority". I would argue that when you are an invading or occuppying military presence within a soverign country, you aren't ever submitting to that countries authority--even if you leave. This is no differnent than the U.S. Vietnam war troop withdrawl from any locations within Vietnam. We admittedly left, but we never surrendered to their "authority". If you don't think so, then I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever of a "surrender" agreement signed by the U.S. military to the North Vietnamese--ever. More to your original point, since the Taliban has no country and has never been recognized as the leaders of Afghanistan, I would also argue any "agreement" for U.S. "surrender" is a complete fabrication by either you, or the press (or both). In fact, according to Franz J. Marty, writing on Feb.01,2021 in The Diplomat: "On February 29, 2020, the United States and the Taliban — after having been at war for over 19 years — signed the historic Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan. The agreement stipulates that the Taliban will prevent anyone from using Afghan soil to threaten the United States and their allies and enter into negotiations with other Afghan sides to forge an Afghanistan that is also at peace with itself. In return, the U.S. promised to withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan". Not one word of a U.S. military "surrender" is mentioned in that agreement. So, basically, in Feb. 2020, Trump got the U.S. everything he wanted from the Taliban in this written agreement while having Afghanistan and the Taliban agree to peacefully settle their own civil war disputes. Of course, he had no authority to enforce the latter, and couldn't have cared less --IMO. It was the first part of the agreement he was after so they he could start pulling military forces out on the rationale that there was no longer a reason for U.S. military to be there. If you want to call that a "surrender", then you're certainly entitled to your own, personal delusion. I certainly don't buy it. In fact, even though I'm no fan, Biden's failed pullout of the last remaining troops from Afghanistan on August 26, 2021 (similar, but worse than Vietnam) did not amount to a "surrender". It was simply a colossal strategic failure by our U.S. military to safely exit military personnel from continued civil war torn Afghanistan which resulted in the needless deaths of 13 U.S. service members.
What's the relevance of your question?
huh? Trump was gone in feb 20. And your mcstain character was the sole vote that defeated trumps taking down government run Obama care