DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:11 pm
"nah" is a reply used to signify that you have fallen into the habit, so common here, of inventing explanations to fit your predispositions. There's no evidence whatsoever in the cited passage about Trump opposing Afghanistan for "purely transactional" reasons, much less that he insulted anyone other than those in the room with him. Moreover, these comments, which you
interpret as purely ignorant and self-serving (but which are likely neither), wouldn't have been heard or even known by "those serving there bravely" if someone else hadn't leaked them.
Your entire response is pure emotive gibberish. There are plenty of reasons to think that Afghanistan has been an enormous failure, and yet you ignore all of them...cUZ TRUMp! That's...well...nah.
That it didnt even cross Trump's mind that his comments would leave the room when he chose to go off on a looney rant to a room full of Pentagon leaders and administration staff is why you dont put toddler reality tv hosts in the White House.
That had exactly zero chance of not being put into a book. Nearly everyone who gets jobs like those writes fucking books or is quoted as a "source within the administration" after they quit or get fired.
And yes, I am fully aware that there are 10,000 other reasons why Afghanistan "failed". But at the core of it, there isnt even a definition of what "winning" is. How do you win nothing?
My entire response is simply opinion. I am not here attempting to write government policy, law or a reference book on the topic. It's what seems to me to be happening. If what it seems to be to you is entirely different then this is a great forum to share those thoughts.
You seem to be a wealth of knowledge and information on the topic at hand. I am more than happy to learn new information on the topic if you could take a moment away from being a condescending asshat to share it.