Judging by his thread about gas and pipelines, he is just making shit up.Originally Posted by Tgo01
Judging by his thread about gas and pipelines, he is just making shit up.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
Senior Member
Yeah, that's because I listened to the senate committee hearing this morning. Apparently you've been only enjoying the Examiner. Multiple times Republican members tried to phrase their questions for sound bites only and on two occasions it was pointed out that their recommendation was not to exceed the end of August. Specifically because it would not have helped.
SENATOR, AS A MATTER OF PROFESSIONAL ADVICE, I WOULD ADVISE ANY LEADER, DON'T PUT DATE CERTAINS ON END DATES. MAKE THINGS CONDITIONS BASED. TWO PRESIDENTS IN A ROW PUT DATES ON IT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S -- MY ADVICE IS DON'T PUT SPECIFIC DATES. MAKE THINGS CONDITIONS BASED. THAT IS HOW I'VE BEEN TRAINED OVER MANY, MANY YEARS. WITH RESPECT TO, THOUGH, TO THE 31st AND THE DECISION ON THE 25th, THE RISK TO MISSION AND THE RISK TO FORCE, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE RISK TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT ARE REMAINING, THAT WAS GOING TO GO UP, NOT DOWN, ON THE 1st OF SEPTEMBER. AND THE AMERICAN CITIZENS -- I KNOW THERE'S AMERICAN CITIZENS THERE, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN AT GREATER RISK HAD WE STAYED PAST THE 31st, IN OURPROFESSIONAL OPINION.IT WAS OF THE JOINT CHIEFS, PLUS GENERAL MILLEY, ADMIRAL VAZELY AND GENERAL DONAHUE. THE REASON WAS THE RISK TO AMERICAN MILITARY AND AMERICAN CITIZENS. WE WERE ALREADY IN CONFLICT WITH ISIS. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IF WE STAYED PAST THE 31st, WHICH MILITARILY IS FEASIBLE BUT IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED AN ADDITIONAL COMMITMENT OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF FORCES, PROBABLY 15, 20, MAYBE 25,000 TROOPS. WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO DECLARE KABUL OF THE 6,000 TALIBAN THAT WERE ALREADY IN KABUL. THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEGINNING ON THE 1st. IT WOULD HAVE PUT U.S. CASUALTIES ON THE AMERICAN SIDE AND IT WOULD HAVE PUT CIVILIANS THAT ARE STILL THERE AT GREATER RISK. SO ON THE 25th WE RECOMMENDED WE SWITCH TO A DIPLOMATIC OPTION ON THE 31st.THAT'S CORRECT, SENATOR. WE SAID RISK TO MISSION, RISK TO FORCE AND RISK TO REMAINING AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AFGHANISTAN WAS GOING TO GO TO EXTREMELY HIGH BEGINNING SEPTEMBER IF WE STAYED PAST THE 31st WITH U.S. FORCES.YES, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE ASSESSED. IF WE STAYED PAST THE 31st, THE RISK TO FORCE, CASUAL TIRKS THE RISK TO THE MISSION, THE ABILITY TO EXECUTE AND THE RISK TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT ARE STILL THERE WAS GOING TO GO TO HIGH LEVELS AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A LEVEL OF RISK UNACCEPTABLE.I THINK THE POINT IS HAD WE STAYED PAST THAT DATE THAT WAS AGREED UPON EARLY ON, THAT THE TALIBAN WOULD BEGIN TO ATTACK OUR FORCES HERE. AND WE'D HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS ON HOW TO REINFORCE OUR FORCES SO WE COULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE, QUITE POSSIBLY INCREASING THE FORCE.
AND IN THE AGREEMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP AGREED TO LEAVE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON MAY 1st. THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN TESTIFIED BY THE PANEL THAT WERE REALLY NEVER ACHIEVED, NEVER CHALLENGED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT AN AD VOCATION OR SURRENDER, THAT AGREEMENT?
I I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT CONDITIONS WERE PRESET. AND AGAIN WE LIVED UP TO ALL THE THINGS THAT WE WERE OBLIGED TO DO. WE DIDN'T ATTACK THEM. AND WE DREW DOWN OUR FORCES. BUT THE TALIBAN, THE ONLY THING THEY LIVED UP TO WAS THEY DIDN'T ATTACK US.
AND WE SAW A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY IN MEETING THE DEADLINE, WHICH WAS AUGUST 31st. WOULD IT APPEAR TO YOU THAT A MAY 1st DEADLINE WOULD HAVE CAUSED MORE COMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF GETTING EQUIPMENT OUT AND PERSONNEL OUT, IDENTIFYING AMERICANS ELIGIBLE TO LEAVE AND GETTING PAPERWORK, SINCE YOU WOULD BE DOING IT IN A MUCH SHORTER TIMEFRAME?
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FEESABLE TO DO IN AN ORDERLY FASHION.
That’s not even what we are talking about. Jesus fucking Christ, man. Enough with the lies already.
At least one general recommended 2500 troops should remain in Afghanistan, show me where they said just until the August 31st withdrawal deadline.
For fuck's sake, here is an article from NPR, you know that bastion of "right wing" talking points.
Generals Say They Recommended Keeping U.S. Troops In Afghanistan
So where did they qualify their statements that the 2500 troops was just until the withdrawal deadline? Is NPR also part of this grand conspiracy of lying in an effort to make Biden look like the lying sack of shit that he is? Why is Jen Psaki trying to gaslight the shit out of us if the generals never contradicted Biden's statements like you are suggesting, Seran?Top Pentagon officials have stated publicly for the first time that they personally believed it would be a mistake to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Commander of U.S. Central Command Gen. Kenneth McKenzie all testified during a Tuesday hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The hearing featured rigorous questioning from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike have criticized the chaotic withdrawal that saw U.S. troops try to coordinate a mammoth evacuation of Americans and Afghan allies as the Taliban quickly gained control of the country. Criticism of the administration's actions became heightened when 13 U.S. troops were killed in an attack near Kabul airport by the terrorist group ISIS-K.
Austin, Milley and McKenzie all took great care when answering questions about the withdrawal and would not discuss their conversations with President Biden.
"I will give you my honest opinion, and my honest opinion and view shaped my recommendation [to the president]," McKenzie said. "I recommended that we maintain 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, and I also recommended earlier in the fall of 2020 that we maintain 4,500 at that time. I also have a view that the withdrawal of those forces would lead inevitably to the collapse of the Afghan military forces and eventually the Afghan government."
This is at odds with comments Biden made during an interview in August when he said his military advisers did not tell him to keep troops on the ground past the withdrawal deadline.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that Biden had made clear in the interview that advisers were split over the issue. She said Biden's military advisers also made clear that had 2,500 troops been left in Afghanistan, they would have had to fight the Taliban, and would need to be reinforced.
BANNED 4 LYFE
He’s pertinent trying to fill the fail void that Ashliana left behind too.
[Private]-GSIV:Nyatherra: "Until this moment i forgot that i changed your name to Biff Muffbanger on Lnet"
Senior Member
Already quoted it.
You mean that part that had nothing to do with what I just quoted? So you’re going on record that NPR is a far right news publication that is lying in order to make Biden look bad?
Senior Member
I like how Dreaven is sitting here making junk up when it was Trump who signed this ridiculous treaty with the Taliban. Tried to withdraw all troops by the beginning of January 2021 and ultimately left us with only 2,500 troops to begin with. How many Afghan civilians or American citizens were evacuated from Afghanistan by Trump? Zero yeah that's right its zero
So NPR is also part of this far right wing conspiracy theory to lie about what the generals said? You do know how crazy you sound right about now right?
Look at you flounder and flail with failure.....
"B-b-b-but TRUMP!!!"
This withdrawal was ill advised, ill planned, ill conceived and ill carried through... and that's 100% all on President Biden.
Sorry.
PC RETARD HALL OF FAME
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
