How about you do the same as to why Trump negotiated with terrorists, and didn't allow the actual Afghani government to have any input in those negotiations with terrorists, that is in direct conflict with America's long standing policy to NOT negotiate with terrorists.
What good is an empty airbase with no pilots or equipment? I'm sure the American's in Kabul would not be able to get thru 40 miles of taliban check points. There were no troops to remove either Biden needed more just to guard the airport. Why did the one term mistake pull out 15,000 troops and not take the civilians with them?
So, you don't have an answer, that's what I thought.
Actually , it is clear you have no response as to why Trump first negotiated with terrorists, which goes against a long U.S. standing policy, and are simply diverting from that fact because you don't want to address the fact.
Hard to follow that disjointed logic. Empty? We should keep it active and well defended, as it is in a strategic position between China and Russia. Now, there's another warning to leave the dangerous airport in Kabul, that Biden decided was a good idea to use, instead of our highly secure Bagram airbase.
Biden is negotiating with terrorists. More like begging, actually.
Still dodging, Anthony. Not a good look at all, unless you are supporting Trump's negotiations with a terrorist group..
As in all these threads, you and others are dodging and avoiding admitting how badly Biden has screwed up and got people killed. You are trying to change to topic to Trump, who had nothing to do with Biden's failures. It's not dodging on my part to stay on topic and resist your attempts to go off on a tangent.Still dodging, Anthony. Not a good look at all, unless you are supporting Trump's negotiations with a terrorist group..
Nope, Anthony. I've admitted, that Biden has botched the troop pullout. But let's both get on DP record in regards to U.S. Presidents negotiating with terrorists. I say NO POTUS should negotiate with terrorists, ever. Not Biden, not Trump, not ANY POTUS. What say you in regards to any U.S. POTUS negotiating with terrorists?
Should be done on a case by case basis, and not in a hostage situation. But, that's for another thread.
So you're open to an American President negotiating with terrorists, which is in direct conflict with America's long standing stance of NOT negotiating with terrorists. Good to have that on DP record going forward.
Did you read the agreement?
Since you seem to obviously know, ain't jumping through hoops for it. Be a stand up dude and just state it plainly. Thanks in advance, genuinely curious.
The better question is "do you trust a terrorist to keep an agreement"? I sure as hell don't.
Are you saying there should be zero communication? After 9/11, we "negotiated" for access to Bin Laden. There was no agreement, but a negotiation certainly took place.
You can ask whatever you want. I asked if you read the document. Did you? And I don't mean since I asked the question.
'communication' =/= 'negotiation'
On the other hand, I don't trust a politician to keep an agreement either. So there is that.
So you equate our politicians with terrorists. Nice to know that unsolicited self-outing.
Since I've read it and you haven't, I'll comment.
As if we need to negotiate, or trust terrorists on anything in any venue for those terrorists to laugh at the "agreement." Since when did we ask the UN for permission to retaliate against terrorists for any reason when they transgressed the United States' interests?
Again you jump to conclusions. I didn't equate them, I mentioned they share a common trait, they aren't especially honest.
Then try this one. Keep this bullshite thread in the conspiracy thread where it belongs. You've got nothing.