ahw01
Well-Known Member
It’s intimidating but not difficult. Who does that sound like…
Oh Trump/Vance (DCA P-56 violation)
- Thread starter Cherokee_Cruiser
- Start date
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
Liz Cheney is farther to the right than Trump is. Thats how brain dead Democrats are today. We hate Trump so you should support politicians that are farther to the right than Trump? Its idiotic.
Liz Cheney was the most loyal supporter of the Trump agenda in congress.
Democrats used to be the anti-war party. Now they encourage people to support the war hawk Republicans.
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
It’s usually guys going into TEB on the RNAV. They’ll be direct unvil initially than we give a vector to intercept to shave off a couple miles and hit the gap, but then they turn back the other way and • everything up for us for the next hour
Autothrust Blue
PCU M/Y SPIRIT OF MELLIE
KLB
Well-Known Member
Liz Cheney isn't running for President not has she mentioned persecuting her political adversaries.
inigo88
Composite-lover
To go to war or not is a policy decision.
To accept election results and peacefully transfer power to the next administration is the foundation of our democracy.
I would much rather argue and compromise and coexist with people about the former who believe in living in the same democracy want to live in, than fascist snowflakes who would rather elect a wannabe dictator than admit that they lost.
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
Sure, she voted with the MAGA agenda 90% of the time, but she didn’t attempt to rip up the Constitution in an effort to stay in office. Not attempting to be a dictator is an important detail.
Autothrust Blue
PCU M/Y SPIRIT OF MELLIE
I'm ready to get back to (peacefully and respectfully) disagreeing with Liz Cheney on a regular basis.
JordanD
Here so I don’t get fined
I don’t get this Republican talking point about Trump keeping us out of wars.
What wars have we entered since the Bush era?
ahw01
Well-Known Member
Casus belli - Wikipedia
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Syria and Libya, Iraq 3 vs Isis
JordanD
Here so I don’t get fined
It could be argued those aren't "wars" in the sense Iraq 2003 and Afghanistan were. But if that's the talking point I'm trying to understand the logic.
"We want a big military, but it's bad if we use it to airstrike terrorists."
"Military aid to Ukraine bad. Military aid to Israel good."
"Trump is the peace President, but we're mad that the next guy pulled out of Afghanistan after 20 years under a deal Trump negotiated."
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
Arguably the largest war Trump has waged has been right on U.S. soil. He loves to ignite his simp base with rhetoric and insane conspiracies, and they are so stupid, that they actually believe it and are ready for some civil war that is never going to happen. For anyone to believe that Trump wasn't directly responsible for morons storming the Capitol on Jan 6, they might as well believe that the earth is flat.
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
Let's also add that they want big military, and love veterans until it comes time to actually take care of them. Almost like children...
People aren’t mad that we pulled out of Afghanistan, as we couldn’t be there forever and the nation had to be able to govern itself at some point. People are mad at how we pulled out of there. The strategic and tactical blunders that were made were on the same exact level we saw with the fall of Saigon. We had the playbook of errors in hand, and didn’t even bother to reference it this time around. How any combatant commander agreed with these plans, if in fact they did, is perplexing.
Contrast that Iraq was more of a phased pullout and more organized, and even the Iraq military took a beating from ISIS after we left, where they lost over 1/3 of their country, until they manned the eff up, got medieval on ISIS, and slaughtered them ghengis khan style to get their real estate back.
JordanD
Here so I don’t get fined
That's a rabbit hole I don't really want to go further down in General Topics. But a lot of the anger seems to be misplaced on one administration for that one. But also:
Yeah... The Afghans had 20 years to get their crap together and get some semblance of a functioning government/defense together. I can't say I'm not of the mind that it's not our problem anymore.
To give perspective to the first paragraph, in Vietnam, Nixon began the mission of handing over the war to the South Vietnamese, under Vietnamization, but it was actually Ford’s watch that the Saigon fall occurred (though it would’ve been Nixon had he not left office). But it was Congress that cut off funding South Vietnam for supplies and logistics, and that sealed their fate, so Ford’s hands were tied anyway.
On the second, the Iraqis were lazy and not motivated, wanting the US to do all the heavy lifting. And it showed post-pullout. And they got themselves turned around eventually. Afghan military should’ve learned from that, but they were also spread thin around that huge country. Didn’t help that we vacated bases in the middle of the night, leaving vehicles and equipment behind and abandoned, without even so much as a courtesy call to the local Afghan unit commander. Unreal that the military brass went for this plan.
ahw01
Well-Known Member
Wars can be won by Evacuations
Operation PITTING was a success. But we shouldn't let that cloud our judgement. The Afghanistan campaign failed.
wavellroom.com
///AMG
Well-Known Member
I should hope that no combatant commander ever agreed to that plan. I probably don't want to know if they did.
To your point about ISIS post OIR, I don't know if it was really them manning up. I recovered right behind the first jet to drop a bomb in that little war. He was a JO in a different squadron. After that, they got night and day air support, and more importantly, a lot of US non-uniformed three letter agency guys without names or faces on the ground, doing the lords work. Eventually the tide turned, i.e. we bombed them into the dirt, and the Iraqis figured out that they should root for a different team......Iraqis always root for the winning team it seems. Not saying they don't have normal human levels of courage, just that decades of blind followership towards a strong man had lasting effects. ISIS was almost a replacement for Saddam, had we not convinced them otherwise. I remember the early days when Iraqi soldiers were deserting regularly for ISIS death squads. They very much did almost take Baghdad. I flew a number of unarmed "NTISR" missions tracking their progress (and atrocities) before the Obama administration eventually gave us the green light to actually do something about it. That decision making cycle probably cost way more lives than it should have, but I guess such is politics, and the amount of time it takes to come to the realization that no, your policy didn't result in a clean break after all. I don't think our Iraq pullout was really much better than in AFG, it just didn't make a bunch of headlines, and the deaths weren't Americans for the most part.
Last edited: