Taliban greets Pentagon's withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan with cries

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The United States has more in common with Russia than it does with Iran. Putin is not some "Great Satan" that America should be pathologically obsessed with.

There are plenty of opportunities for the US to work with Russia, for the betterment of international stability in the 21st century. Putin's been the leader of Russia for quite some time, yet it's mainly in the past decade or so that history has been revised to suddenly cast him as a "Great Satan" through the shrillest possible rhetoric. And of course the shrillness has to continue at a fever pitch, lest anyone dare to stop for a moment to look around and question it.

KGB-this-KGB-that -- it's all a shrill shrieking narrative that continues to get ever shriller with each passing moment, to lash everyone into keeping their heads down and marching in lockstep.

Sorry Sanman, but you did not do a great job supporting your opinions.
Now here's mine:

When the Berlin Wall fell, Putin was a decorated KGB officer stationed in East Germany. The Soviets actually made a point of illustrating his sense of shame and helplessness as East Germany and the regime of Erich Honecker dissolved right before his eyes. In point of fact, the Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment division of the East German Stasi made a special point of illustrating Putin as a tragic figure unable to shore up support from Moscow. The Dzhershinsky Guards were the East German version of the Soviet Cheka, and Putin was first trained as a Cheka.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Vladimir Putin was "laterally transferred" to a post as a minor public official, serving as a deputy city functionary in St. Petersburg. He watched as Boris Yeltsin stumbled drunkenly with Bill Clinton, who by this point was definitely the top dog in the US/USSR-CIS relationship. Yeltsin needed US money in order for his freshly minted former communist state to survive the transition to a market economy.
The notion that the Soviet state in which he’d been raised and trained, whose demise he once called “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” had become a client state with a leader who was a source of Western amusement was stinging.
And NOBODY felt the sting more than Vladimir Putin.
The 1990's Bill and Boris Show were, to Putin, one long period of humiliation—domestically and internationally.
And on January 1, 2000, the very first address Putin gave was to the troops, telling them that their mission included “restoring Russia’s honor and dignity.”

As of November 16, 2016, Putin has installed cutting-edge Bastion anti-ship missiles to Kaliningrad, in spitting distance north of Poland, plus equally advanced S-400 air defense systems to shoot down aircraft and missiles as far as 250 miles out.
With this move, the Kremlin has established control over the Baltic Sea, most of Poland and the Baltic republics—NATO members all.

The backdrop of what Putin calls Russia's "spiritual security" is the Russian Orthodox Church, which he terms equally as important as Russia's state and military security.
If there is one thing Putin despises more than anything else in the West, it is our societal mores.
His inspiration for his anti-Western hatred is Ivan Illyin.

Your homework assignment is to learn about "Russian Orthodox Jihadism", which teaches that the West is an implacable foe of Holy Russia with whom there can be no lasting peace.
For centuries—whether led by the Catholic Church, Napoleon, Hitler or the United States—the West has tried to subjugate Russia and thereby crush Orthodoxy, the one true faith. This is the Third Rome myth, which became very popular in 19th century Imperial Russia, postulating that it is Russia’s holy mission to resist the Devil and his work on earth.

Make no mistake about it, although Putin trained as KGB, he is not dreaming of restoring the Communist USSR, he's dreaming of restoring the Imperial Russian Empire, with him as the CZAR.

"Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains."
(Vladimir Putin)

There's much more, but I say with high confidence that what you don't understand about Putin...IS A LOT.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I may not like Trump much, but I don't have the fear of him you do either. I was ambivalent on Obama's Iran deal. I didn't say much one way or the other. What I did say was that it should have got senate ratification. That without ratification, it was no more than a deal between Obama and Iran than was Nixon deal with then President Theiu of South Vietnam that the U.S. would come to South Vietnam's aid if the North broke the Paris Peace Pact. Any future president could either abide by or not. This I pointed out and then let it rest.

Was it a good deal or wasn't it. I still don't know. I made no objections when Obama agreed to it other than it lacked ratification. I made no objections when Trump pulled us out. Talking is better than hostilities. That is if there is a chance of working things out. Then that may depend on trust. Does Iran trust us? Do we trust Iran? The answer to both is probably no. We then could revert back to Reagan's trust but verify slogan. If you have a means, a way to verify Iran or whomever is keeping their part of the bargain, then perhaps trust can be earned via verification.

The International Atomic Energy Agency.
When they say Iran isn't trying to manufacture nuclear weapons, I am confident in their say-so.
Your mileage may vary, but the IAEA has had the ear of the Pentagon since its inception.

Obama couldn't ratify the screw-on top of a toothpaste tube.
Thank your Republican Mitch McConnell for that.

It's not like I am saying that the thing to do right this second is make nicey nice with Iran, far from it.
That would involve Trump, and I don't trust the man as far as I can spit.
Trump would **** up a wet dream.

But we better damn well figure out something better than the current arrangement because the current arrangement is the backdrop to a disaster that Trump will utilize to his advantage. I remain confident that this is the ONLY reason he made his decisions on Syria and Afghanistan.
He wants us bent over with our zipper down.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The United States has more in common with Russia than it does with Iran. Putin is not some "Great Satan" that America should be pathologically obsessed with.

One other side point:
I spent the years 1987 to 1993 as camera operator and videotape editor for Sergei Levin's "American-Russian Television", located in the Russian Fairfax District in West Hollywood. American-Russian Television aired several times a week on KSCI TV Channel 18 in Los Angeles and served the Los Angeles Russian immigrant community. I watched the fall of the USSR and the drunken Boris Yeltsin Show firsthand with my Russian bosses.

If you are unfamiliar with Sergei Levin, it's because you're unfamiliar with Soviet television news. Levin was a news anchor for Vremya, the nightly Soviet newscast in the days before he left the USSR.

He later gained minor fame as the "ring announcer" in "Rocky IV" and was best friends with Russian actor The United States has more in common with Russia than it does with Iran. Putin is not some "Great Satan" that America should be pathologically obsessed with."]Elya Baskin (Moscow On The Hudson, Air Force One, Transformers: Dark of the Moon) until his death in 1996.

(Sergei Levin in Rocky IV)



"Stallone is actor like I am cosmonaut!" (Sergei Levin)

 

[sanman]

Sorry Sanman, but you did not do a great job supporting your opinions.
Now here's mine:

When the Berlin Wall fell, Putin was a decorated KGB officer stationed in East Germany. The Soviets actually made a point of illustrating his sense of shame and helplessness as East Germany and the regime of Erich Honecker dissolved right before his eyes. In point of fact, the Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment division of the East German Stasi made a special point of illustrating Putin as a tragic figure unable to shore up support from Moscow. The Dzhershinsky Guards were the East German version of the Soviet Cheka, and Putin was first trained as a Cheka.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Vladimir Putin was "laterally transferred" to a post as a minor public official, serving as a deputy city functionary in St. Petersburg. He watched as Boris Yeltsin stumbled drunkenly with Bill Clinton, who by this point was definitely the top dog in the US/USSR-CIS relationship. Yeltsin needed US money in order for his freshly minted former communist state to survive the transition to a market economy.
The notion that the Soviet state in which he’d been raised and trained, whose demise he once called “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” had become a client state with a leader who was a source of Western amusement was stinging.
And NOBODY felt the sting more than Vladimir Putin.
The 1990's Bill and Boris Show were, to Putin, one long period of humiliation—domestically and internationally.
And on January 1, 2000, the very first address Putin gave was to the troops, telling them that their mission included “restoring Russia’s honor and dignity.”

As of November 16, 2016, Putin has installed cutting-edge Bastion anti-ship missiles to Kaliningrad, in spitting distance north of Poland, plus equally advanced S-400 air defense systems to shoot down aircraft and missiles as far as 250 miles out.
With this move, the Kremlin has established control over the Baltic Sea, most of Poland and the Baltic republics—NATO members all.

The backdrop of what Putin calls Russia's "spiritual security" is the Russian Orthodox Church, which he terms equally as important as Russia's state and military security.
If there is one thing Putin despises more than anything else in the West, it is our societal mores.
His inspiration for his anti-Western hatred is Ivan Illyin.

Your homework assignment is to learn about "Russian Orthodox Jihadism", which teaches that the West is an implacable foe of Holy Russia with whom there can be no lasting peace.
For centuries—whether led by the Catholic Church, Napoleon, Hitler or the United States—the West has tried to subjugate Russia and thereby crush Orthodoxy, the one true faith. This is the Third Rome myth, which became very popular in 19th century Imperial Russia, postulating that it is Russia’s holy mission to resist the Devil and his work on earth.

Make no mistake about it, although Putin trained as KGB, he is not dreaming of restoring the Communist USSR, he's dreaming of restoring the Imperial Russian Empire, with him as the CZAR.

"Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains."
(Vladimir Putin)

There's much more, but I say with high confidence that what you don't understand about Putin...IS A LOT.

So now you're wanting to continue the Cold War into some obsession with "The Russian Empire". Give me a break. The British had their British Empire, the French had the French Empire, the Germans had their own Prussian expansionism - even the Holy Roman Empire back in earlier form. There's nothing weird or special about the Russians.

What we have here is the same kind of situation that Eisenhower complained about following the end of WW2, which was the assertiveness of a war lobby which wanted to keep maintaining a state of hostility, as they had considerable investment in it.
It's the same thing now, with the Cold War lobby wanting to keep going even after the Cold War was won. They need a war, and they need a Great Satan to crusade against. So Putin is now made into some larger-than-life Great Evil.
Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[sanman]

One other side point:
I spent the years 1987 to 1993 as camera operator and videotape editor for Sergei Levin's "American-Russian Television", located in the Russian Fairfax District in West Hollywood. American-Russian Television aired several times a week on KSCI TV Channel 18 in Los Angeles and served the Los Angeles Russian immigrant community. I watched the fall of the USSR and the drunken Boris Yeltsin Show firsthand with my Russian bosses.

If you are unfamiliar with Sergei Levin, it's because you're unfamiliar with Soviet television news. Levin was a news anchor for Vremya, the nightly Soviet newscast in the days before he left the USSR.

He later gained minor fame as the "ring announcer" in "Rocky IV" and was best friends with Russian actor The United States has more in common with Russia than it does with Iran. Putin is not some "Great Satan" that America should be pathologically obsessed with."]Elya Baskin (Moscow On The Hudson, Air Force One, Transformers: Dark of the Moon) until his death in 1996.

(Sergei Levin in Rocky IV)

View attachment 67246654

"Stallone is actor like I am cosmonaut!" (Sergei Levin)

Huh? You're saying that your exposure to Russian employers in Hollywood gave you some special insight into Russia?

What a coincidence - my father worked in investment banking for some close associates of George Soros - they were all Hungarian immigrants. My father got a close-up view of how the Soros empire works. There is a desire to re-make the world according to their particular needs. Soros doesn't have a large state apparatus of his own to wield power over - instead his style is to cultivate all kinds of influence and make use of various states and their apparatus for his needs. Soros had a pretty horrible childhood - must have scarred him for life - because he feels he's got some kind of mission to mold the world according to his narrow perceptions.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So now you're wanting to continue the Cold War into some obsession with "The Russian Empire". Give me a break. The British had their British Empire, the French had the French Empire, the Germans had their own Prussian expansionism - even the Holy Roman Empire back in earlier form. There's nothing weird or special about the Russians.

What we have here is the same kind of situation that Eisenhower complained about following the end of WW2, which was the assertiveness of a war lobby which wanted to keep maintaining a state of hostility, as they had considerable investment in it.
It's the same thing now, with the Cold War lobby wanting to keep going even after the Cold War was won. They need a war, and they need a Great Satan to crusade against. So Putin is now made into some larger-than-life Great Evil.
Sorry, I don't buy it.

Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
I gave you a concise and accurate history of Vladimir Putin, Putin's view of present day Russia, and his objectives.
You don't buy it? Good for you, but what you know about the Soviet Union OR present day Russia wouldn't fill a thimble, otherwise you'd be posting opposing arguments instead of maudlin references to the first Cold War.

Our issues with Russia don't just have the potential to put us on a brand new Cold War footing with Russia, they already have.

Eisenhower complained about one specific aspect of the situation, and that is the fact that the defense community had sprouted into its own industry. We retooled existing industries to fight WW2, and Eisenhower stated that we needed to continue along those paths rather than build a "military industrial complex", but in order to hew to that path strictly, Congress must strictly enforce the requirement to Congressionally DECLARE a "state of war" rather than do what it's been doing ever since Vietnam.

The two philosophies are interdependent upon one another.

But our tensions with Russia are no less real, you simply don't have enough frame of reference to understand the specifics.
Maybe instead of skimming my post, you could try actually reading it, and the sources I referenced.

You could also watch Putin's Revenge, a PBS Frontline program.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Huh? You're saying that your exposure to Russian employers in Hollywood gave you some special insight into Russia?

What a coincidence - my father worked in investment banking for some close associates of George Soros - they were all Hungarian immigrants. My father got a close-up view of how the Soros empire works. There is a desire to re-make the world according to their particular needs. Soros doesn't have a large state apparatus of his own to wield power over - instead his style is to cultivate all kinds of influence and make use of various states and their apparatus for his needs. Soros had a pretty horrible childhood - must have scarred him for life - because he feels he's got some kind of mission to mold the world according to his narrow perceptions.

It was the Russian language television apparatus that served the entire Russian immigrant community in Southern California, supplying that population with news and entertainment.

And now you're veering off into the weeds with stories about Soros in a desperate attempt to feed relevancy into your nonexistent counter-argument. It's like you view learning something as a disability or something.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

By the way, because you want us to trust Putin, I have to ask, do you believe it was wise for Trump to pull us out of the nuclear treaty that we had since 1987?

That 1987 agreement with Russia, as the then Soviet Union, ended the deployment of medium to long range nuclear missiles between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in Europe.

 

[slick]

Trump is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

Afghanistan properly named by British MP's 'a poisoned chalice'
The USA never even saw a hint of victory there, neither did the Russians before them. They ought to have learned from
the British:

By 1841 British forces in Afghanistan faced a murderous rebellion led by the deposed emir's son. On January 1, 1842, three
years after their invasion, a combined force of sixteen thousand five hundred British and Indian troops began its retreat from
Kabul under an agreement of safe conduct. The passage was anything but safe, however, as the retreating forces came under
persistent attack by Pashtun Ghilzai warriors in the snowbound mountain passes on the hundred-mile route to Jalalabad. In
one of the most crushing defeats in the empire's history, the remnants of the British column were massacred about thirty-five
miles from Jalalabad. The sole survivor of the march was an army surgeon.
He told of a terrible massacre in the Khyber Pass, in which the Afghans gave the defeated
Anglo-Indian force and their camp followers no quarter.
https://nationalinterest.org/article/curse-of-the-khyber-pass-3029

 

[EnigmaO01]

We don't need to fight ISIS over there anymore.They are coming across the border from Mexico.We will be fighting them here.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Liberals?

Your posts just keep getting dumber and dumber.

 

[slick]

I wouldn't classify myself as an isolationist or a pacifist. But as smart fighter, others I'm sure wouldn't. I gave and still do give Bush high marks for how he first fought the war in Afghanistan. A few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power with the 13 tribe northern alliance doing the fighting on the ground. Them, boom. His huge mistake, he called it nation building. The problem was Afghanistan, maybe a country in name only, wasn't a country we would recognize. 18 tribes ruling over their own little section of Afghanistan. More like the Indians of the 1700-1800's here. There was no Indian nation, there was no nation of Afghanistan. Bush tried to make Afghanistan a nation when the tribes didn't want a nation as we know what a nation is. A bunch of those 13 tribes that were on our side to begin with, aren't anymore.

Syria, I never thought we should put troops in there to begin with. I think if we just get out of Assad's and Russia's way, they'll handle the rest of ISIS. ISIS is their enemy as much as ISIS was ours. Their tactics might be more brutal, but unlike video games, war is all about killing and destruction. Don't get involved in a war unless you are willing to do all the killing and destroying as necessary. also make it a quick war even if it means more death and destruction at the beginning to end it. A long, prolonged war trying to avoid death and destruction always leads to many times more deaths and destruction due to it length.

my opinions anyway.

Excellent analysis

 

[EnigmaO01]

Does anybody else find it strange that the left is switching from Peace Doves to War Hawks?

One could also beg the question does anybody find it strange that the right is switching form War Hawks to Peace Doves?

 

[sanman]

By the way, because you want us to trust Putin, I have to ask, do you believe it was wise for Trump to pull us out of the nuclear treaty that we had since 1987?

That 1987 agreement with Russia, as the then Soviet Union, ended the deployment of medium to long range nuclear missiles between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in Europe.

You and that other guy want a permanent Cold War, based on some kind of circular argument.

"The Russians are our enemies because they're hostile to our allies. Our allies are our allies because they're hostile to our enemy Russia. And... And... And Evil-KGB-Putin blah blah blah!"

Sorry, but that's really ****ed up reasoning. This blah blah blah is being magically extended to Trump (how unsurprising). Just like Bret Kavanaugh was magically a rapist because Leftards needed him to be.

Narratives seem to get constructed on demand these days, just to fit political expediency. The ever ambitious Left have craftily occupied the favorable high ground by getting their people into CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, etc to give them a towering advantage in swaying as many as possible to their narrative.

I still know a crooked made-up narrative when I see it. I don't care how many times Darth Vader's voice tells me to trust it.

 

[Perotista]

One could also beg the question does anybody find it strange that the right is switching form War Hawks to Peace Doves?

Yep, that's what I meant if the meaning wasn't clear. Both sides doing a complete 180

 

[Rogue Valley]

I wouldn't classify myself as an isolationist or a pacifist. But as smart fighter, others I'm sure wouldn't. I gave and still do give Bush high marks for how he first fought the war in Afghanistan. A few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power with the 13 tribe northern alliance doing the fighting on the ground. Them, boom. His huge mistake, he called it nation building.

I disagree. It was obvious that the small US forces in-theater could not protect the Afghani people from the Taliban. The first rule of counter-insurgency is to protect and enlist the indigenous people. At this time. the Afghan military didn't really exist yet.

Syria, I never thought we should put troops in there to begin with.

Perhaps not. But US air power alone wasn't going to destroy ISIS in either Iraq or Syria. The vast bulk of anti-Assad forces were neither ISIS nor al-Nusra. The Russians were more interested in protecting Assad than in destroying the Islamic State.

I think if we just get out of Assad's and Russia's way, they'll handle the rest of ISIS. ISIS is their enemy as much as ISIS was ours. Their tactics might be more brutal, but unlike video games, war is all about killing and destruction.

What you are saying here without actually articulating it is that the ends (victory) justify the means (war crimes).

my opinions anyway.

Mine also P. Disagreement is healthy. Keeps those synapses working

 

[Thoreau72]

Yes, as we "learned" in Southeast Asia back in the 70s is that it's really tough, likely impossible, to be an army of occupation in a foreign land where the natives hate occupiers.

 

[DaveFagan]

From NBC News

Taliban greets Pentagon's withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan with cries of victory
​

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — News that the White House had ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan provoked widespread criticism that the move would kneecap efforts to broker a peace deal to end America's longest war.

But there was one group on Friday celebrating the reports — the Taliban.

Senior members told NBC News the news was a clear indication they were on the verge of victory.

“The 17-year-long struggle and sacrifices of thousands of our people finally yielded fruit," said a senior Taliban commander from Afghanistan’s Helmand province. "We proved it to the entire world that we defeated the self-proclaimed world’s lone super power."

COMMENT:-

Apparently not everyone thinks that Mr. Trump is doing the wrong thing by pulling out of Afghanistan.

I wonder how the "conservatives" feel about finding themselves on the same side as the Taliban.
​

Reality beckons in the "Graveyard of Empires, Afghanistan." Thanks to the USA, poppy production is at an all time high, as evidenced by Opiate addictions/criminality in this Nation. Somebody is making big money off that. We have not been helping Afghanis, although I have no doubt any USA soldier individually, would be happy to do that. The USA has a big hammer and it is the only tool we seem to use. That's what a billion dollar Military budget (all inclusive) will bring to the table. People in power that only have power when there are Wars and do you think they relish giving up that power or are willing to give up that power? The USA is enforcing "Free Trade" with weaponized currency, weaponized banking, weaponized sanctions, weaponized tariffs, and the result is anything but "Free Trade." We're kinda broke because we have pissed away $5 trillion on morally indefensible WARS and that is in the last 17 years. As regards Afghanistan and its' geographic location that has great pipeline and transportation potential we will now have to compete "fairly" to acquire such assets, not to mention the tremendous mineral potential. Since we've made "Free Trade" an oxymoron that may be difficult. USA agreements aren't woth the paper they are printed on and how do we rectify that scenario. Simple: actions on the ground and time. Lete's get started.
/

 

[EnigmaO01]

Yep, that's what I meant if the meaning wasn't clear. Both sides doing a complete 180

My bad. I just saw the one side represented in your post. Must not have read far enough.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So now you're wanting to continue the Cold War into some obsession with "The Russian Empire". Give me a break. The British had their British Empire, the French had the French Empire, the Germans had their own Prussian expansionism - even the Holy Roman Empire back in earlier form. There's nothing weird or special about the Russians.

What we have here is the same kind of situation that Eisenhower complained about following the end of WW2, which was the assertiveness of a war lobby which wanted to keep maintaining a state of hostility, as they had considerable investment in it.
It's the same thing now, with the Cold War lobby wanting to keep going even after the Cold War was won. They need a war, and they need a Great Satan to crusade against. So Putin is now made into some larger-than-life Great Evil.
Sorry, I don't buy it.

The US currently spends around $590Bn annually on its military. If the "threat level" were reduced to its actual level that would come down by at least 40% or $236Bn. One method of analysis puts the "spin off" from government (actually any, but why confuse the issue) at around 6 :: 1. That would mean that a reduction of $236Bn in spending would result in a GDP decline of around $1,416Bn. That would mean (roughly) a 7.3% decline in the US GDP.

The cumulative effect of a 5+% decline in the US GDP could well be catastrophic to the US economy.

That means that it is NOT ONLY the (reviled) "Military/Industrial Complex" that has a vested interest in keeping defence spending elevated.

Since the end result of defence spending is (essentially) the production of stuff that is designed to be thrown away (yes, I'm over stating, but you get my drift) the US economy appears to be dependent on "non-productive spending" and - if you want to get right down to the base of the issue - the same thing could be accomplished by simply giving the money away.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
I gave you a concise and accurate history of Vladimir Putin, Putin's view of present day Russia, and his objectives.
You don't buy it? Good for you, but what you know about the Soviet Union OR present day Russia wouldn't fill a thimble, otherwise you'd be posting opposing arguments instead of maudlin references to the first Cold War.

Our issues with Russia don't just have the potential to put us on a brand new Cold War footing with Russia, they already have.

Eisenhower complained about one specific aspect of the situation, and that is the fact that the defense community had sprouted into its own industry. We retooled existing industries to fight WW2, and Eisenhower stated that we needed to continue along those paths rather than build a "military industrial complex", but in order to hew to that path strictly, Congress must strictly enforce the requirement to Congressionally DECLARE a "state of war" rather than do what it's been doing ever since Vietnam.

The two philosophies are interdependent upon one another.

But our tensions with Russia are no less real, you simply don't have enough frame of reference to understand the specifics.
Maybe instead of skimming my post, you could try actually reading it, and the sources I referenced.

You could also watch Putin's Revenge, a PBS Frontline program.

Many people forget that "American society" has its roots in the WESTERN Roman Empire while "Russian society" has its roots in the EASTERN Roman Empire and think that (assuming that they even know where the roots of societies are) that, because both have their roots in "The Roman Empire" that they MUST be the same at heart.

There is an old Russian saying that translates (roughly) as "There are always two governments, the one that says it is the government and the one that actually gets things done.". "The Russians" accept that and have learned to live with it (mostly because it is an accurate description of reality in Russia (and many other countries). "The Americans" totally reject that and live in a fantasy world where they believe that because they call a dog's tail a leg that means that dogs have five legs.

The trick to having a society whereby the people (as a whole) enjoy the benefits that having a government is supposed to provide is to ensure that "the one that says it is the government" is at least roughly balanced against "the one that actually gets things done" AND VICE VERSA.

In American politics the "Republicans" have one absolutely inviolate principle and that is "To keep the Democrats out of power- but if they are in power to ensure that they don't get anything done.". The "Democrats" also have one absolutely inviolate principle and that is "To keep the Republicans out of power - but if they are in power to ensure that they don't get anything done.". As you can see, those two inviolate principles have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with each other because they are the exact opposite of each other.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

One could also beg the question does anybody find it strange that the right is switching form War Hawks to Peace Doves?

The two sides appear to be:

1. the people who say that "we" shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place because that only made the situation worse, BUT if we pull out now then that will only make the situation EVEN WORSE; and
2. the people who say "we" didn't realize that getting involved in the first place would make the situation worse, BUT we should pull out now EVEN THOUGH that will only make the situation EVEN WORSE.

The common point for both groups is that for the US to pull out will make the situation EVEN WORSE. Where the two groups differ is over whether they believed that getting involved in the first place would make the situation worse and whether the US has any obligation to attempt to make the situation LESS WORSE (to be ungrammatical for emphasis).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes, as we "learned" in Southeast Asia back in the 70s is that it's really tough, likely impossible, to be an army of occupation in a foreign land where the natives hate occupiers.

Not understanding that, in some cultures:

• "foreigner" means "someone whose family hasn't lived within walking distance of the place as my family has lived for the past 10 generations"
• "friend" means "someone whose family hasn't done anything negative to my family for the past 10 generations"; and
• "enemy" means "everyone who is a 'foreigner' and/or who is NOT a 'friend';

doesn't help either.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I find it strange that so many people who were saying just a couple years ago that we need to leave Afghanistan, are now freaking out that we're leaving Afghanistan and Syria.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I find it strange that so many people who were saying just a couple years ago that we need to leave Afghanistan, are now freaking out that we're leaving Afghanistan and Syria.

That's because, a couple of years ago they still believed that the US had won smashing victories in both places. Now they realize that a US withdrawal will result in situations that are worse than before the US "intervened in the interests of peace and freedom".

On the other hand, the major benefit of a continued "American intervention" appears to be that the situations will get worse more slowly than if the US troops are ordered out by Mr. Trump.

What has really surprised me is that Mr. Trump didn't order that all of the troops actually be out of Afghanistan and Syria by 19 JAN 19 so that he could announce that he had won two wars (three if you count his stunning victory over the DPRK that caused it to completely, and unilaterally, rid itself of all nuclear weapons and related research/construction facilities) in his first two years in office.