So, you see this as a good thing. If Republicans hadn't excoriated Obama for trying to reduce the US effort 10 years ago (8 years into the unwinnable war effort), I'd almost believe you are being fair minded about this.
That's an interesting redirect. Almost like you didn't want to answer the question about what exactly Trump is giving up on that we haven't previously already given up on. Actions speak louder than words, nothing about our posture was showing that we had a specific goal we were still working towards.
And no, I don't see it as a good thing, just not as some kind of new departure from an existing status or strategy or for that matter from Obama's policy.
I see that we're throwing in the towel, as Trump did in Syria. As for the US military goal in Afghanistan, it clearly shifted over time. I was originally in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11, but the mission lost focus almost immediately. Bush applied the usual American strong arm tactics to try to dominate the country and neighboring Pakistan militarily to "rid" Afghanistan of the smallish cult-like Taliban. At the same time he wanted to turn both countries into "friends" of the US, which really just means vassal states.
So you literally wrote that the mission failed during Bush's time, what exactly was the mission during Obama? or Trump's first 3 years? and what was this agreement somehow changing?
You seem to simultaneously believe that the mission was run as failed from immediately after the invasion and that acknowledging the reality you argue for by pulling out is wrong.
I'm hard pressed to believe that any Trump status change would have been correct in your eyes (it also would have been wrong to keep the status quo), and yet if it had been Obama doing the exact same thing you'd be complimenting it.
Do you have a basis for this criticism that's indepedent of the persons that engaged in it?
With all that, pulling out now leaves the Taliban in a position to accomplish the mission they had all along, to install their tyrannical regime on a country that has no ability to defend itself. As you point out, there's winning and losing, except I don't see much winning.
Except, I think this is demonstrably false. The Taliban, without outside help, is not in any position to install a tyrannical regime. They are diminished, and if they can't just silence the other side (which they won't be able to) then their ideas will be exposed over time.
Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.
This part of the discussion would require more than would fit in the margins of this post. I'll just point out that an even modest effort to read what other countries are saying about Trump and what their citizens are saying about the US these days gives the lie to your viewpoint.
Not in a serious analysis does your position make sense. You need to consider that diplomats often lie and mislead and say things for public consumption or to influence the situation. The fact is so long as countries are "saying" Trump is ineffective and conceding one thing after another to him with their actions your point is wrong.
He's Trump, as far s I can tell, branding things Trump may have been one of his biggest business lines. No evidence at all that he's done that in politics.
His self-interest never leaves his thoughts.
Lol, did you add professional pyschic to your resume? Gotta love the motive speculation, but I will point out this is exactly why the impeachment failed. To the Dems its impossible to conceive that Trump is acting out of anything BUT self interest, and when the evidence doesn't show that and does directly support other reads they literally can't compute it.
Or to put it another way, so far your arguments are not doing much to disprove Crunch's TDS hypothesis. In fact, that comment almost makes it certain.
At the risk of you falling into another endless back-and-forth, I'll just point out that there was no plausible reason behind withholding military aid to Ukraine other than getting dirt on his potential opponent in the upcoming election.
There are several plausible reasons that were actually documented in the record, so that statement is just a lie. Sorry to be harsh, but that ones just a lie.
In fact, there is no evidentiary reason to to believe it was connected to getting the dirt, other than TDS. Or can you cite to the evidence that ties it to Trump?
That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance.
Lol, no evidence he's "pissed" at Ukraine. Flat out lie that military assistance with delayed.
That is an utterly clueless statement. You have to close your eyes and cover your ears to sustain that belief.
Okay, then please cite to the evidence that shows he's pissed at the Ukraine. Show the evidence linking it to them not giving them Biden's head on a platter. Show the evidence that aid didn't flow.
The last claim is provably false. There is zero evidence on the first 2. So pretty much, your claim is either naked motive speculation based on an inconclusive record or TDS, you can tell me which.
Still bizarre to me that people that defended Obama not providing military hardware while Russia invaded Ukraine because they didn't want to offend Russia, get all worked up over Trump delaying non-combat aide to Ukraine when there are no serious active operations ongoing.
Whenever Trumpies jab Obama it's a sign that they can't actually defend him on his actions. It's a combination of what-aboutism and projection.
Nah, but every time an anti-Trumper makes a claim that it's just whataboutism it's literally just a statement that they can't actually explain why the situation is different without everyone seeing they have no consistent principals.
In any event, this really is an odd one. It's appalling that you can't explain why Obama withholding lethal aid during the actual fighting, notwithstanding that the US and the EU both committed to
defend Ukraine not just provide aid as part of the deal to get Ukraine to surrender it's nuclear arms is okay in your book, but a timing delay on nonlethal aid by the President that had already and was still providing lethal aid is a problem.
Can it really just be that using the magic word "whataboutism" means you don't have to actually have a principle behind your arguments?
Trump has blamed Obama for nearly every one of his own failings so far, so why not for his extortion attempt in Ukraine.
Honestly don't have an opinion on this one. Doubt your claim is provable (and that's not criticizing it in the hyperbolic sense it was intended - I think). But it is one of Trump's great failings that he can't admit to mistakes, so I'm sure there are some instances of this.
Believing this is because they "wouldn't give him Biden's head on a platter," just goes to show how easily people convince themselves of what they want to believe. Ukraine aid was delayed in prior years as well, as was aid to other countries than Urkraine.
Proof that "Ukraine aid was delayed in prior years as well"? Lol, read it several times before but hard to find what the media doesn't want out there. In any event, it's my understanding that specifically aid to Urkaine was not obligated until September in 2018, but also in 2017 and 2016. Should be easy to prove me wrong.
While you wait, heres's a 2017 article that talks expressly about the Congressional fear that OMB will be used by Trump to facilitate his policy to cut foreign aid (what what was it you said about no other plausible reason again?)..
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/18/fears-grow-trump-will-ignore-congress-spending-241768Trump's opposition to foreign aid was something he campaigned on. Nothing in the Dem's case was anything but circumstantial and vague at that. There's a reason the Dems refused to allow due process, they knew if the public heard the defense at the same time as the Democrats (rather than months after the Dems got to make their case) there would be no case - and everyone would know it. Instead you got to listen to a prosecutor trying to cheat for months by biasing the jury and never did hear from the defense.
Sad, I fear that Kool-Aid has sugar-coated your brain.
Yeah, I'm the problem. You can't explain reasonably why due process that every American is entitled to at law, which is deemed so fundamental a right that conviction for any crime will be overturned if it's not provided, wasn't provided by the DNC House in what should have been one of the most important activities in which they can engage.
I never even asked for them to be neutral, but there is literally no excuse for this failure.
Think that's immaterial? Roger Stone is STILL UNDER A GAG ORDER because defending himself in public might "inproperly" influence his proceedings.
. He's under a gag order because he was trying to work the press. It's rather astonishing that you can't bring yourself to understand his very simple motive there.
Isn't this where I'm supposed to stare at you sarcastically till you realize what you just said?
Lol, yes that's exactly why he's under a gag order, even though his ability to "work the press" was tiny compared to Adam Schiff's, Jerry Nadler and the whole gaggle of press working facists.
It's also revealing that investigating corruption by the Bidens is more offensive to you than corruption by the Bidens. If there were any consistency to your outrage, the existence of this situation would make Biden an unacceptable candidate.
It's a Trump-inspired fantasy that the so-called investigation of the Bidens has anything to do with exposing crimes.
Hunter is guilty, and honestly Joe is too. Any honest review of Hunter's career has to acknowledge that it's virtually all political trading in violation of the principals and sometimes the letter of the law. As far as Joe, pretty hard to explain what exactly he did that was legitimate to get his drug addicted son admitted into the Navy over the age of 40, or why he shouldn't be held accountable for either knowing what his son was doing or deliberate and willful blindness. I mean the records show that even DNC admin officials were concerned (and given their tolerance for DNC corruption) that says a lot.
This is why this is TDS. If you had a consistent principle, you could not just be "outraged" at Trumps "corruption" and at the same time pretend this corruption doesn't exist.
If the country was so corrupt for so long, how come that is the only thing Trump wanted investigations of?
It's not, he asked for other investigations, even in the call what you said isn't true. But moreover, it was his express policy and the express policy of his state department (remember all those "heros" that testified, they'd tell you the same).
Also ask yourself how come Zelensky couldn't bring himself to give Trump what he wanted?
Ask yourself why, and maybe follow that up with why a Ukrainian judge recently ordered them to investigate the situation.
How come Zelensky hasn't come forward with any even a hint of evidence about the Bidens since Trump pushed him last summer?
Because he's not an idiot. Everyone knows what the Dems do to those that rat on them. If he tanks Biden his country loses it's aid, there's not even a question. The Dem Senators sent him a letter threatening him if he gets involved.
Ukraine has said there's no evidence of corruption by either Biden, but there is evidence of other corruption within Burisma. If you don't want to hear that, prove me wrong.
Give me the citation first.
Anytime "the Democrats" do anything, something is going on. The treaty was under review by Congress for a long time before impeachment, if you recall.
Yes, for no reason since it had broad bipartisan support. Nancy held it simply to deny Trump the victory.
OTOH, I do like how Republicans are claiming that the impeachment hearings were timed to distract Trump from tackling the coronavirus spread just so they could blame him for all the deaths that would (and may yet) result. Don't forget that Pence won't criticize Don Jr for saying that Democrats want millions of Americans to die from COVID-19 just so they can win the next election.
Never heard that conspiracy theory of yours. Have you met these"Republicans"?
I'm not sure what to say about this. Trump dismantled the pandemic/epidemic office and delayed taking prophylactic measures against the spread of the coronavirus, so that now it is taking a completely new ground-up effort to fight against it. He has no idea how little he understands.
If you're not sure what to say, then I'd recommend cutting out the half truths and mischaracterizations. Just state the facts, then add your analysis, instead of trying to tilt the field by making misleading claims.