Some of the military moves Trump is making just going to cost us money?

[Gmoney4WW]

We've lost one soldier out of 450 over the last year. We have been in control of the country from a humanitarian standpoint, and maintained it militarily and economically, to serve it's purpose for us. The question is if it is worth it to lose the life one soldier every month or so, on the average. But that is a question of whether the overall mission is of enough value, which is not the question I posed.

The issue I asked about, and the main point of this post is whether it serves any purpose to withdraw 2000 troops, when you know damn well that the next president will put those troops back in country. I don't care about the justifications, or non justifications of the mission, I am purely talking about the economics of it, because it is pretty automatic that the troops will be there when Biden gets in office.(all 4500 or so of them)

I don't mind a few minor divergences from the topic, to a more general assessment. But that is not what I brought up. All this because Shon is so distracted by getting triggered, and wants to focus on his feelings, instead of the topic of the post.

If you want to talk about that so much, then start another darned post, with a more general topic. Whether it is justified to be in Afghanistan, or even the middle east, or even Europe? Whether we should pull out of where ever, etc.? But the topic of this post is whether it makes any sense financially or for the protection of our soldiers lives, to pull out 2000 troops, when you know good and well they will likely be sent back in a couple of months. And it is not just our soldiers lives being put in danger, it is the soldiers of other countries as well. There is the issue of what we are doing to our alliances, because their are soldiers there from 38 of our allies there! There was no discussion with any of them about troop reductions and how it would affect them. There is never any discussion with our allies, with Trump.

A side note to TUME's side note. If we were withdrawing we wouldn't be leaving 2500 soldiers. Yes we leave soldiers there even when we withdraw, but not 2500 soldiers. And you don't start a gradual withdrawal, if you know that the new presidency will take over in a couple of months, and they will not continue with your gradual withdrawal. It does not make economic and security sense to do so. Separate your feelings, and pay attention to the question asked.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

And no, I did not mean you specifically @TUMe, when I asked you to separate your feelings in the last sentence.

That was meant as the general you.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

And the sentences in blue were added in edits, in case you looked at it before editing. /\

 

[shon46]

We've lost one soldier out of 450 over the last year. We have been in control of the country from a humanitarian standpoint, and maintained it militarily and economically, to serve it's purpose for us. The question is if it is worth it to lose the life one soldier every month or so, on the average. But that is a question of whether the overall mission is of enough value, which is not the question I posed.

The issue I asked about, and the main point of this post is whether it serves any purpose to withdraw 2000 troops, when you know damn well that the next president will put those troops back in country. I don't care about the justifications, or non justifications of the mission, I am purely talking about the economics of it, because it is pretty automatic that the troops will be there when Biden gets in office.(all 4500 or so of them)

I don't mind a few minor divergences from the topic, to a more general assessment. But that is not what I brought up. All this because Shon is so distracted by getting triggered, and wants to focus on his feelings, instead of the topic of the post.

If you want to talk about that so much, then start another darned post, with a more general topic. Whether it is justified to be in Afghanistan, or even the middle east, or even Europe? Whether we should pull out of where ever, etc.? But the topic of this post is whether it makes any sense financially or for the protection of our soldiers lives, to pull out 2000 troops, when you know good and well they will likely be sent back in a couple of months. And it is not just our soldiers lives being put in danger, it is the soldiers of other countries as well. There is the issue of what we are doing to our alliances, because their are soldiers there from 38 of our allies there! There was no discussion with any of them about troop reductions and how it would affect them. There is never any discussion with our allies, with Trump.

A side note to TUME's side note. If we were withdrawing we wouldn't be leaving 2500 soldiers. Yes we leave soldiers there even when we withdraw, but not 2500 soldiers. And you don't start a gradual withdrawal, if you know that the new presidency will take over in a couple of months, and they will not continue with your gradual withdrawal. It does not make economic and security sense to do so. Separate your feelings, and pay attention to the question asked.

Don’t blame me! I said what I had to say in the first post and have been laser focused the last 5 responses directly to your question. The answer from me will always be no. We can mine asteroids now that produce the same rare minerals found in Afghanistan. We have no further justification to be there.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Don’t blame me! I said what I had to say in the first post and have been laser focused the last 5 responses directly to your question. The answer from me will always be no. We can mine asteroids now that produce the same rare minerals found in Afghanistan. We have no further justification to be there.

I was not blaming you as the only cause, just as the catalyst for the divergence.

 

[shon46]

I was not blaming you as the only cause, just as the catalyst for the divergence.

Colonialism is a dead strategy period. I can’t and won’t support or justify that strategy and that is exactly what it is.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

That is an extremely broad definition of colonialism that I don't agree with.

 

[URedskin54]

If stepping in and saying “no you can’t slaughter young women for no reason” is colonialism then I guess call me colonist

 

[Gmoney4WW]

If stepping in and saying “no you can’t slaughter young women for no reason” is colonialism then I guess call me colonist

You be a colonialist, not a colonist. 😜

 

[URedskin54]

You be a colonialist, not a colonist. 😜

If I lived there do I get to be both?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

If I lived there do I get to be both?

I don't know, can you be both the S & M.


Another blague to give you a hint, if you read the other board.

 

[TUMe]

And no, I did not mean you specifically @TUMe, when I asked you to separate your feelings in the last sentence.

That was meant as the general you.

1. No problem. I didn't think it was the singular you. But if it had been it would have still be no problem.

2. We have never had much topic regulation in our posts. Most of the long threads wonder all over the place. Our posters change topics. Most people are used to that unless they are misquoted. The person who starts a thread doesn't own it.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

1. No problem. I didn't think it was the singular you. But if it had been it would have still be no problem.

2. We have never had much topic regulation in our posts. Most of the long threads wonder all over the place. Our posters change topics. Most people are used to that unless they are misquoted. The person who starts a thread doesn't own it.

I didn't want to own it, I just wanted a few posts to actually relate to the original topic.

 

[TUMU]

I didn't want to own it, I just wanted a few posts to actually relate to the original topic.

How about that comeback win tonight, lol 😆.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

How about that comeback win tonight, lol 😆.

Dammit, stay on topic!!!

 

[HuffyCane]

I don't know... the US has done it before. Just ask Richard Nixon about what happened to the people behind these folks in line...

You clearly do not understand that Nixon had not been President for more than a year, and that the Democratically controlled Congress, which had a super majority in both houses, caused this when they refused to approve President Ford’s request for both continued aid to South VietNam AND/OR additional funding for DOD to begin an orderly evacuation. What you see is what happens when career democrats in the State Department are left in charge of military operations they know nothing about with scarce resources. We got out around 185,000 Vietnamese nationals, mostly people who were helping the US government or devout Catholics (who were being beheaded in large numbers by the peaceful socialists victimized by American aggression). Nixon ended the war the Democrats started. He fulfilled that campaign promise. He delivered a plan to maintain stability in the region through gradual withdrawal. Watergate happened and it all was cast aside or forgotten by Congress. I know you’ve been programmed to believe otherwise and reject all attempts to have you discern nuanced meaning from real facts in favor of pre-programmed ideology, but the above is the cold hard truth.

 

[TUMe]

Kennedy pulled back the air support that had been promised for the Bay of Pigs before that. War is Hell and so are commitments.

 

[astonmartin708]

You clearly do not understand that Nixon had not been President for more than a year, and that the Democratically controlled Congress, which had a super majority in both houses, caused this when they refused to approve President Ford’s request for both continued aid to South VietNam AND/OR additional funding for DOD to begin an orderly evacuation. What you see is what happens when career democrats in the State Department are left in charge of military operations they know nothing about with scarce resources. We got out around 185,000 Vietnamese nationals, mostly people who were helping the US government or devout Catholics (who were being beheaded in large numbers by the peaceful socialists victimized by American aggression). Nixon ended the war the Democrats started. He fulfilled that campaign promise. He delivered a plan to maintain stability in the region through gradual withdrawal. Watergate happened and it all was cast aside or forgotten by Congress. I know you’ve been programmed to believe otherwise and reject all attempts to have you discern nuanced meaning from real facts in favor of pre-programmed ideology, but the above is the cold hard truth.

Nixon signed a peace treaty that everyone knew wouldn’t be enforced and he began withdrawing from the region. You can’t blame Democrats for wanting to be in the war and simultaneously not wanting to be in the war.

 

[HuffyCane]

Nixon signed a peace treaty that everyone knew wouldn’t be enforced and he began withdrawing from the region. You can’t blame Democrats for wanting to be in the war and simultaneously not wanting to be in the war.

I blame them for starting the war and turning their back on genocide waiting to happen because they were tired of the subject.

 

[astonmartin708]

I blame them for starting the war and turning their back on genocide waiting to happen because they were tired of the subject.

The Democrats didn’t start the war. The North Vietnamese did (far before the gulf of Tonkin) and the US was sending military aid to South Vietnam during the Eisenhower administration. Kennedy and Johnson certainly escalated things, but they didn’t start them. Nixon was the one who signed the peace treaty with North Vietnam and withdrew troops and he was the one to propose Vietnamization which failed miserably at preparing the southern Vietnamese for life after the US left.

 

[TUMe]

Kennedy escalated somewhat, but it was LBJ who really accelerated the use of American troops on Division scale to get us over a half a million. The ARVN and the government destroyed a lot of farm land of their own people then put the homeless into camps. Nixon got the Americans out on the four year plan, that is, timed to be nearly there for the next US election.

Years later I interviewed a former VN officer who told me he was Airborne, but hasten to add that because of a shortage of planes they practiced by jumping out of trees. It would have been a poor place for airborne anyway.

 

[watu04]

Nixon signed a peace treaty that everyone knew wouldn’t be enforced and he began withdrawing from the region. You can’t blame Democrats for wanting to be in the war and simultaneously not wanting to be in the war.

There also a well documented case from multiple sources (easy to Google) that Nixon worked with Kissinger to prevent reaching an agreement with the North Vietnamese before the end of his first term. It increased Nixon's chances of re-election and gave him a 'win' early on in next term. I was working in SEAsia at the time and many of my friends were fellow VN vets or still actively involved. As soon as the deal was signed, everyone knew it was over for the South. Anyone with VN friends, began to help them get out.