Posted on 09/10/2019 9:02:18 AM PDT by janetjanet998
Trump says he fired national security advisor John Bolton
“It will be very interesting to see who replaces him. No names come quickly to my mind.”
Sarah Palin will be ‘free to move about the country’ in a short while due to her divorce. ;)
And, as always, Bob Dole is Tanned, Rested and Ready! *SMIRK*
Wilford Brimley calls AA office https://youtu.be/IVHhDhbAWfQ
simplistic statement Irana is more than a country that will split the atom, but you know that don’t you. Why make such a statement and leave out the evil that is Iran.
you’re right we should just ignore it all, they’re probably wrong and they made the Iranian leaders issue all those threats. Nothing to se here, carry on.
destroying the navy was the first step kin response to acts of war. Don’t be ridiculous. Do you think by being illogical you carry the debate. It just shows you don’t have a real position.
Holy crap! If this story is accurate Trump has learned nothing of those he initially brought into the admin who were working against him. This is scary and at this point I am about to say “Bring back Bolton!”
Precisely, and that’s also the reason he never should have been hired.
“The Afghanistan air force is a threat to America. Gotcha.”
So you just want to be silly, ignoring that Jihadists can fly on airlines all around the Middle East, with no problem. Particularly if they are using Pakistani, Iranian or certain Gulf State airports. So add the Afghan airports if all are again under the control of the Taliban and the Taliban again violating any agreements and reverting Afghanistan to a “sanctuary” state for Jihadists, and you just turn back everything to pre-9/11.
That made me snort-laugh.
I too talk to Vets with Iraq and Afghan experience. They do complain about many of the controls on operations, but they mostly do not want to give up the honor of our fallen to a surrender to the Taliban. It is the controls on our operations that hamstring our troops a lot - making them unable to make always make the fight they are capable of. Many of those problems began under Obama and the DOJ has not quit many of them under Trump. And frustration with that is understandable. They also have issues with our inability to absolutely vet Afghans that work with us, with too many “friendly fire” incidents from Afghans who switched loyalties. But those frustration do not universally produce a demand from all our troops that we quit and leave our fallen unrewarded for their sacrifice.
Taqiyya means its adherents can never be trusted. It stil shocks many raised in Western civ's to have this reality sink in. Negotiating with terrorists is fultile.
with respect to what Pompeo et all did not achieve with the Taliban, Bolton is in a “I told you so position”. THAT likely made things uncomfortable on Trump’s team.
Ouch! Very perceptive comment.
Do you speak Persian? I do not know if they made threats or if they did not. I do know that the intelligence services are happy to lie about everything in furtherance of the NWO. Including translations.
Reality is that only 3 countries in that region have nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and Israel. So far none of those countries have faced demands to denuclearize. Personally I’d like to see *all* nuclear, chem and bio weapons gone for everyone.
Do I speak persian? LOL. And if I did?
So some countries have weapons, let’s have religious fanatics get them also. Let’s let up on N Korea and give them to Somalia and the Sudan no problem. Let’s add Venezuela.
"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."—Donald J. Trump
“destroying the navy was the first step kin response to acts of war.”
Dude, go back to watching bad war documentaries.
The last thing this world needs are more idiots offering up dumb policies like that.
It’s all just a fughing game to the stay at home military hobbyist.
So what the hell was the point of that post?
That the “Afganistan air force” will fly [completly undetected] to some place where they will then.... do what?
You just sound like you are fishing for something by reading a Tom Clancy novel. And of you apparently know their movements from your easy chair, then what makes you think the military doesnt?
It is silly to represent the Kamza River Truck plant issue as assisting the Soviets “all along”.
If by “funded the database” (aka Al Queda) you mean we stupidly let our “allies” in kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan (Pakistan and the Saudis) guide where to our support in that effort went, you are correct. I see that as a consequence of our stupidity in not recognizing who the Pakis and Saudis had our support funneled to and how they had their own ideological agenda for Afghanistan, a Jihadist fundamentalist agenda. I have learned that our intelligence services have often been ignorant, or just stupidly heads in the sand, more than deviously traitorous to our interests. It began with a top down error beginning with Carter that thought ANYTHING replacing the Soviets in Afghanistan was “good”. That was just stupid, not intentionally traitorous.
“We ‘supported’ Saddam”. Well, that is really a yes but no story, and it cannot be discussed leaving out the war Saddam initiated against Iran. Saddam got some help from us, and Iran got some help from us as well. Our policy goal was that neither Saddam nor Iran be able to declare much of victory. Any help either side got was intended toward that end. Our team believed that any great land acquiring victory by either side would follow in time with another war to undo any losses. Stalemate is what our side thought best, and stalemate is what happened.
“Maybe a new plan could be to let other countries elect their own leaders”
The Afghans have elected their own leaders. The Taliban don’t like that. Why should we agree with the Taliban?
“I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.”
Just trying to fulfill a campaign pledge, IS POLITICAL and in this case it may be just like OBama - trying to get a diplomatic trophy for a legacy. Is that a personal political pursuit, or a real national security pursuit, if, like with Iran, it is a bad deal, made just to say you made a deal???
Reagan’s use of the military was IN SUPPORT of peace, and he never made a deal just to make a deal.
What? WHY?
OK I’m just getting word about all this. And see minimal info.
It strikes me as shocking, because Bolton was “reviled” for bulling into “incendiary” public comments about our evil ENEMIES and so on. IOW, he seems much like Trump.
But here we are. So what’s the truth? I’m sure on FR the word will be Bolton suddenly turned into some turncoat sap and it’s all his fault. Disagreements? I’d love to know what they are. I am not just going to cast aspersions on Bolton willy-nilly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.