Page 195 of 274 FirstFirst ... 95145185193194195196197205245 ... LastLast
Results 2,911 to 2,925 of 4100

Thread: Had enough yet

  1. #2911
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Your time examples are intriguing shortstuff, because they vividly illustrate Biden's departure from near-enshrined American tradition and policy.

    The United States cut its teeth on the use of military force to free Americans taken hostage or its prisoners of war. From the pre-1812 impressment of American sailors, to the Barbary Wars, past the Boxer Rebellion, through the Pueblo Crisis, Son Tay, the Mayaguez Incident, Grenada, the Achille Lauro intercept, the Libyan raid in response to the La Belle discothèque terrorist bombing, and the "Guests" of Saddam Hussein in 1990, the bi-partisan American foreign policy, with very few exceptions, has always relied on its military might, or at least the threat of its usage, to confront the abuse of its citizens abroad, and to do so in such a way as to preserve American honor.

    Perhaps Biden is some sort of foreign policy wiz, but if such is the case I fail to discern it. As I see things, if Biden has any perceptibly credible policy regarding Afghanistan, I simply do not understand it.
    I can always count on your historian knowledge Mark. Don't we need to be reminded of our history so as not to repeat it? Is Biden dumb as a fox? Me thinks I smell a rat in the white house....

  2. #2912
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    The blame game - another perspective

    Afghan general says army was 'betrayed' by politics and blames Trump, Biden, and Afghan leaders for losing the war to the Taliban

    https://www.businessinsider.com/afgh...-losing-2021-8

    A perspective which I find credible and agree with. Trump did have a different exit strategy, but one that would still leave Afghanistan defenseless against terrorist attack and takeover and threaten America’s security.

    The American public is seeing through Biden’s withdrawal strategy failures and any attempt by the left media to prop him up. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote of Biden’s foreign policy knowledge and decision making, ‘he was wrong near 100% of the time’.

    The following email circulating social media features Mr. Biden’s humanitarian position in the Vietnam War. Acting today against his own intelligence agencies, military, and administrative advice, he pulls out the military before even considering evacuating American citizens and Afghan supporters. Withdrawing from the Bagram Airport was his biggest blunder.

    Vietnam War

    In 1975, President Ford was left to manage the difficult ending of the Vietnam War. President Ford went to Congress for a relief package to allow American personnel and our allies to evacuate.

    However, there was ONE US SENATOR who opposed any such support. The result was the embarrassing and hurried evacuation from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon

    This senator reveled in the embarrassment and did everything he could to leverage it politically against Ford. Despite the efforts of this U.S. Senator--President Ford managed to rescue 1,500 South Vietnamese allies prior to the country's fall. Had President Ford not acted quickly, these people would have been targeted and slaughtered for their support for America. When they arrived in America, President Ford asked Congress for a package to assist these refugees to integrate into American society.

    That SAME troublesome SENATOR TORPEDOED ANY SUPPORT for the shell shocked, anti-communist, Americans and our helpers, the refugees.

    Instead, President Ford had to recruit Christian organizations to offer assistance on a voluntary basis. As he did so, the Senator belittled those efforts. What kind of person would oppose President Ford's tireless work to do the right and humanitarian Thing? Who would want to play politics with the well-being of innocent people who stood by America in the tragic Vietnam War?

    THAT SENATOR WAS JOE BIDEN

    When Biden says he owns this catastrophe, indeed he does!
    Wow, that is our broad reality Lee, Biden does own this catastrophe....

  3. #2913
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    Is Biden dumb as a fox? Me thinks I smell a rat in the white house....
    Shortstuff, for a myriad of reasons, I totally agree with your comment.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  4. #2914
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,352
    I have only a two-word comment...



    CLUSTER FU...K!!!

    13 US service members killed in Kabul airport explosion, officials say: LIVE UPDATES
    Reference: https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/li...se-in-on-kabul
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  5. #2915
    Member Breezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    I have only a two-word comment...



    CLUSTER FU...K!!!



    Reference: https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/li...se-in-on-kabul
    It's super easy for a two-bit fool to post beyond his intelligence, but there ya go again.

    If you need to blame anyone, blame Trump.

  6. #2916
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Breezy View Post
    It's super easy for a two-bit fool to post beyond his intelligence, but there ya go again.

    If you need to blame anyone, blame Trump.
    Whatever you say Professor Anonymous, but in fairness, I am not a big fan of negotiating with terrorists in general, and the Taliban in particular, whether it be Trump or President Dementia.

    However, the difference between Trump and Biden is that Trump's approach to foreign policy smacked of U.S. strength, and the ever-present promise that he would have used that strength, while Biden, in my opinion, is a pathetic, hamstrung puppet of the Chinese who throughout his public life, has faithfully shown an amazing talent to screw everything up.

    If you don't believe me, these appear to be the words of Barrack Obama...


    "Yet searing, anonymously sourced quotes from Obama kept appearing through the race. One Democrat who spoke to Obama recalled the former president warning, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to **** things up."
    Reference: https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ionship-393570

    So to your point, nah, blame Biden, who is owned by the Chinese, and this article may speak to the reason for Biden's application of such a weak, reckless, and sloppy disengagement plan:


    China’s ties to Taliban warm ahead of US leaving Afghanistan

    July 28, 2021

    BEIJING (AP) — China’s foreign minister met Wednesday with a delegation of high-level Taliban officials as ties between them warm ahead of the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan.

    A photo posted on the ministry’s website showed Wang Yi posing with senior Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and his delegation in the city of Tianjin, then sitting down to talks. The highly conspicuous show of friendliness had the appearance of a diplomatic mission at a time when the Taliban are craving legitimacy.

    Wang said China respects Afghan sovereign independence and territorial integrity and always adheres to non-interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs.

    He said the hasty withdrawal of the U.S. and NATO “reveals the failure of America’s policies and offers the Afghan people an important opportunity to stabilize and develop their own country.”

    While no agenda was announced for the meeting, China has an interest in pushing the Taliban to deliver on peace talks or at least reduce the level of violence as they gobble up territory from Afghan government forces.
    Reference: https://apnews.com/article/china-tal...7b2e05c3a9b0cc

    Curious to see if you will blame Trump if, or most probably when, the Chinese expand their aggression in the Taiwan Straight to include an invasion of Taiwan, eh?

    You may want to stick to your libel, small town political establishment ass-licking, and your woefully unremarkable insults as illustrated in post #2915, because if you want to confront me on these issues, you are out of your league, numb nut.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; August 26th, 2021 at 08:06 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  7. #2917
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,959
    Wrong again Joe, you own it, period

    We live in two different worlds where hatred and stupidity adversely impact our country’s best interests. Despite today’s national tragedy and loss of life, some will focus on the disaster, others play the blame game and focus on any distraction that covers Biden’s ass and that further defile America’s image - as the contrasting reports exemplify.

    U.S. projecting weakness emboldens our enemies

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6269688262001#sp=show-clips

    The MAGA Movement’s a Bigger Threat to America Than the Taliban

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...edgdhp&pc=U531

    The Taliban and Al Qaeda are among the most vile, dangerous violent extremist organizations in the world. They pose a threat that must be taken very seriously and actively combatted. They do not, however, pose an existential threat to the United States or our way of life. Trump and his supporters have, with support of one of America’s most dangerous enemies, actively sought to undermine democracy in America. The coup attempt on January 6th and the propagation of the Big Lie are an example of this. Their efforts to suppress the vote are an example of this. Trump’s active obstruction of justice is an example of this. Should they succeed, democracy in America will be gutted, our way of life ended, our values undermined and our standing in the world destroyed. They may yet succeed. As a consequence, the threat they pose is far greater to the United States as a whole.

    And ‘you ain’t going to blame me for this ****’ Harris is warming up in the bull pen! Gasp!

  8. #2918
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Breezy View Post
    If you need to blame anyone, blame Trump.
    To The Blowhard It May Concern,

    Did Trump do this?:


    "Outrage" After Biden Admin Provides Taliban With "Kill List" Of Americans, Afghan Allies To Evacuate

    BY TYLER DURDEN

    THURSDAY, AUG 26, 2021 - 05:08 PM

    Update: during this surreal press conference late on Thursday, Biden did not deny the report of U.S. handing over names of Americans to Taliban, saying 'There may have been.'

    "There have been occasions where our military has contacted their military counterparts in the Taliban and said this bus is coming through...made up of the following group...let it through," the president said. "Yes, there have been occasions like that."

    Biden added that to his knowledge, the "bulk of that group" has been let through but can't say with "certitude" that there was a list of names passed to the Taliban. In short, yes, the Biden admin handed "kill lists" to the Taliban.



    A day that will live in infamy for the reeling Biden administration just got even worse, after Politico reported that Biden administration officials in Kabul gave the Taliban a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to grant entry into the militant-controlled outer perimeter of the city’s airport, a choice which according to the media outlet which was just purchased by Germany's Axel Springer, "prompted outrage behind the scenes from lawmakers and military officials."

    “Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list,” said one defense official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. “It’s just appalling and shocking and makes you feel unclean.”

    After the fall of Kabul, in the earliest days of the evacuation, the joint U.S. military and diplomatic coordination team at the airport provided the Taliban with a list of people the U.S. aimed to evacuate. Those names included Afghans who served alongside the U.S. during the 20-year war and sought special immigrant visas to America. U.S. citizens, dual nationals and lawful permanent residents were also listed. - Politico

    The bizarre decision which was revealed by three U.S. and congressional officials, was meant "to expedite the evacuation of tens of thousands of people from Afghanistan as chaos erupted in Afghanistan’s capital city last week after the Taliban seized control of the country." It also came as the Biden administration has been relying on the Taliban for security outside the airport, which in retrospect was a catastrophic decision.

    But the decision to provide specific names to the Taliban, which has in recent days already brutally murdered numerous Afghans who collaborated with the U.S. and other coalition forces during the conflict, has angered lawmakers and military officials.

    More from Politico on this unprecedented diplomatic disaster:

    The issue came up during a classified briefing on Capitol Hill earlier this week, which turned contentious after top Biden administration officials defended their close coordination with the Taliban. Biden officials contended that it was the best way to keep Americans and Afghans safe and prevent a shooting war between Taliban fighters and the thousands of U.S. troops stationed at the airport.


    “They had to do that because of the security situation the White House created by allowing the Taliban to control everything outside the airport,” one U.S. official said. In other words, the handing over a kill list to the Taliban is the direct result of Biden's bungled evacuation of Kabul, which was overrun by Taliban, and now ISIS, just hours after US forces started pulling out.

    But after thousands of visa applicants arrived at the airport, overwhelming the capacity of the U.S. to process them, the State Department changed course — asking the applicants not to come to the airport and instead requesting they wait until they were cleared for entry. From then on, the list fed to the Taliban didn’t include those Afghan names.

    In the fluid situation, starting Aug. 25, only U.S. passport and green card holders were being accepted as eligible for evacuation, the defense official said. Still, that U.S. officials handed over a list of Afghan allies and American citizens and residents shows the extent to which they outsourced security of the airport’s outer perimeter to the Taliban which as Biden said previously, had being treated as "allies" of the admin.

    Instead of helping expedite the evacuations, the Taliban has gone door-to-door in search of Afghan interpreters and others who helped U.S. and Western forces.

    In written and verbal communications, Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, and Rear Adm. Peter Vasely, head of U.S. forces on the ground in Afghanistan, who were among those responsible for this unprecedented fiasco, have referred to the Taliban as “our Afghan partners,” according to two defense officials.

    Needless to say, news of this idiocy sparked fresh call for Biden to resign or be impeached.



    The news came just hours after two Islamic State terrorist attacks rocked the area just outside the airport, killing at least a dozen U.S. citizens and wounding dozens more.

    After the attacks, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) appeared to criticize the Biden administration’s strategy of coordinating with the Taliban, writing in a statement: “As we wait for more details to come in, one thing is clear: We can’t trust the Taliban with Americans’ security.”
    Reference: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ou...37w70olnz1p13x
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; August 27th, 2021 at 11:02 AM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  9. #2919
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Despite today’s national tragedy and loss of life, some will focus on the disaster, others play the blame game and focus on any distraction that covers Biden’s ass
    Yep and Biden is among the first to cover his own ass by either blaming Trump, or apportioning the blame to include his subordinates...
    THE PRESIDENT: I bear responsibility for, fundamentally, all that’s happened of late.

    But here’s the deal: You know — I wish you’d one day say these things — you know as well as I do that the former President made a deal with the Taliban that he would get all American forces out of Afghanistan by May 1.
    And as General McKenzie said, this is why our mission was designed — this is the way it was designed to operate: operate under severe stress and attack.
    ...and our commanders on the ground and throughout the day, they made it clear that we can and we must complete this mission...
    Every day when I talk to our commanders, I ask them what they need — what more do they need, if anything, to get the job done. As they will tell you, I granted every request.

    I reiterated to them again today, on three occasions, that they should take the maximum steps necessary to protect our forces on the ground in Kabul.
    There has been complete unanimity from every commander on the objectives of this mission and the best way to achieve those objectives.
    Reference: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ional-airport/


    Compare Biden's shamefully qualified comments, to the boldly unqualified comments others who have held the Presidency; they did not share responsibility, nor did they advance any if, ands, or buts...

    Dwight D. Eisenhower, June, 1944:


    "Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."
    Reference: https://www.businessinsider.com/d-da...enhower-2012-6

    John F. Kennedy, April, 1961:

    From the President's April 21, 1961 Press Conference:

    [17.] Q. Sir, since last Saturday a certain foreign policy situation has given rise to many conflicting stories. During that time reporters in Washington have noticed that there's been a clamming up of information from formerly useful sources. To my knowledge the State Department and the White House have not attempted to take a representative group of reporters and say, "These are the facts as we know them," and this morning we are not permitted to ask any further questions about this foreign policy situation. In view of the fact we are taking a propaganda lambasting around the world, why is it not useful, sir, for us to explore with you the real facts behind this, or our motivations?

    THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think, in answer to your question, that we have to make a judgment as to how much we can usefully say that would aid the interest of the United States. One of the problems of a free society, a problem not met by a dictatorship, is this problem of information. A good deal has been printed in the paper and I wouldn't be surprised if those of you who are members of the press will be receiving a lot of background briefings in the next day or two by interested people or interested agencies.

    There's an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan. And I wouldn't be surprised if information is poured into you in regard to all of the recent activities...


    ...But I will say to you, Mr. Vanocur, that I have said as much as I feel can be usefully said by me in regard to the events of the past few days. Further statements, detailed discussions, are not to conceal responsibility because I'm the responsible officer of the Government--and that is quite obvious-but merely because I do not believe that such a discussion would benefit us during the present difficult situation.


    Reference: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...conference-213


    White House Statement, April 24, 1961:

    President Kennedy has stated from the beginning that as president he bears sole responsibility for the events of the past few days. He has stated it on all occasions & he restates it now so that it will be understood by all.”
    Reference: https://legallegacy.wordpress.com/20...e-bay-of-pigs/



    Jimmy Carter, April 25, 1980:

    It was my decision to attempt the rescue operation. It was my decision to cancel it when problems developed in the placement of our rescue team for a future rescue operation. The responsibility is fully my own.
    Reference: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/...tages-in-iran/

    Ronald Reagan on the Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing, 1983:

    ''If there is to be blame, 'it properly rests here in this office and with this President. I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.''
    Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/28/w...-officers.html
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; August 27th, 2021 at 04:33 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  10. #2920
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,959
    Mark: you ignorant, cerebral slut

    Your pithy, historically fact-based analytical posts are no match for the analytically brilliant Breezy.

    In eight words (“If you need to blame anyone, blame Trump”) he has bested your calculated, analytical posts and opinion – in his mind!. Where the great majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, agree the Biden Afghan withdrawal was devoid of plan, and where Biden even ignored his intelligence community advisors. There are a few like Breezy who won’t let facts stand in the way of demonizing anyone with a different opinion or political view..

    While I am still of the mind that we should have never surrendered Afghanistan to terrorists, worked with terrorists when withdrawing, I believe there are national security interests for staying. Different Trump plan or not, Trump wanted us out of Afghanistan as well. And we surrender and leave $85 billion in sophisticated weaponry and intelligence behind. And while Biden says he owns it he blames everyone for the ‘cluster-f***!

    Washington, a ship of fools!

    The mainstream media should be ashamed of itself!

  11. #2921
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post

    While I am still of the mind that we should have never surrendered Afghanistan to terrorists, worked with terrorists when withdrawing, I believe there are national security interests for staying. Different Trump plan or not, Trump wanted us out of Afghanistan as well.
    Lee, I agree with your comments.

    Indeed, I was not, and am not, comfortable with Trump's decision to deal with the Taliban. However, given his history as a crafty negotiator, I simply can not equate his negotiating skill set with that of the feckless Biden.

    I direct your attention to Trump's talks with Kim Jong-un. In that process, Trump effectively restrained North Korea's chronic test flights of nuclear warhead-capable missiles over Japan and near Hawaii. Perhaps it was Trump's imaginative the-carrot-and-the-stick policy that convinced "Rocket Man" to deal with Trump in a non-hostile way, but Trump's North Korean initiative just may go down in history as a success.

    With that said, Trump's agreement with the Taliban simply was not what the Biden administration is now portraying as a near-unqualified "complete withdrawal" by May 1, 2021.

    In that regard, I understand that the Trump agreement would have provided for the maintenance of Special Ops forces in Afghanistan to ensure Taliban compliance with their pledge not to permit Afghanistan to once again be a staging area and safe haven for terrorist groups.


    Trump’s Pledge to Exit Afghanistan Was a Ruse, His Final SecDef Says

    Chris Miller now says talk of a full withdrawal was a “play” to convince a Taliban-led government to keep U.S. counterterrorism forces.

    President Donald Trump’s top national security officials never intended to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, according to new statements by Chris Miller, Trump’s last acting defense secretary.

    Miller said the president’s public promise to finish withdrawing U.S. forces by May 1, as negotiated with the Taliban, was actually a “play” that masked the Trump administration’s true intentions: to convince Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to quit or accept a bitter power-sharing agreement with the Taliban, and to keep some U.S. troops in Afghanistan for counterrorism missions.
    Reference: https://www.defenseone.com/policy/20...f-says/184660/

    Furthermore, I have a very hard time believing that Trump would have closed the Bagram Air Base until the withdrawal was successfully and fully completed. In direct contrast, with the Biden policies, we simply do not have an orderly, well-managed withdrawal, but an embarassing route; a dishonorable evacuation which paves the way for Chinese exploitation of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, most probably pursued in the strict strategic interests of Xi's and his hegemonic desires.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; August 27th, 2021 at 08:57 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  12. #2922
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,959
    Hindsight is always 20/20

    Trump’s Pledge to Exit Afghanistan Was a Ruse, His Final SecDef Says

    Chris Miller now says talk of a full withdrawal was a “play” to convince a Taliban-led government to keep U.S. counterterrorism forces.

    President Donald Trump’s top national security officials never intended to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, according to new statements by Chris Miller, Trump’s last acting defense secretary.

    Miller said the president’s public promise to finish withdrawing U.S. forces by May 1, as negotiated with the Taliban, was actually a “play” that masked the Trump administration’s true intentions: to convince Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to quit or accept a bitter power-sharing agreement with the Taliban, and to keep some U.S. troops in Afghanistan for counterterrorism missions.
    McEnany: Taliban knew there were repercussions under Trump, weakness under Biden

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgntp

    If this indeed was Trump’s ploy/plan/ruse we are no better than the terrorists we are dealing with. And to advocate that the plan was being adhered to by the Taliban because no American deaths occurred up to May 1st, is presumptuous when dealing with terrorists.

    America’s doctrine has been to never ‘deal’ with terrorists. We have seen that doctrine broken by both Trump and Biden. Have we become a nation where it is acceptable to now deal with terrorists in the first place, and then give approval if the outcome is favorable to us – and then trust terrorists to hold to their promises? Is that us now?

    As for Biden, he is sadly incompetent, cognitively impaired and incapable of extemporaneously addressing the media or dignitaries without use of cheat sheets – as happened today with his presser with Israeli Prime Minister Bennett.

    It is equally sad and disturbing to watch this man represent America among world leaders. Equally sad and disturbing to watch the left and the liberal media prop this man up – a disservice to America’s best interests. Joe walks away from pressers without taking questions and when he does his statements are not fact-checked by the liberal media. No need to, Joe chopped down a cherry tree in his back yard!

    We don’t know and never will know what would have happened under Trump’ plan. It doesn’t matter. He was not in office on May 1st. We did see what happened under Biden, and it was a train wreck - and 180 lives were lost in the process.

    Biden went out of his way to reverse everything Trump instated. Yet he found it impossible to opt out of an agreement with terrorists.

    We should never have pulled troops out of Afghanistan, surrendered a country to terrorists, handed the Taliban $85 billion in military equipment, all while declaring the U.S. has no interest in Afghanistan.

    Biden’s 2,0 Obama doctrine of ‘Leading from Behind’!

  13. #2923
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post

    America’s doctrine has been to never ‘deal’ with terrorists. We have seen that doctrine broken by both Trump and Biden. Have we become a nation where it is acceptable to now deal with terrorists in the first place, and then give approval if the outcome is favorable to us – and then trust terrorists to hold to their promises? Is that us now?
    Lee, in my opinion, you are correct in that America has never overtly dealt directly with terrorists. The same may be said of its engagement with hostile indigenous revolutionary groups or hostile governments overthrown by violent revolution.

    However, it is only fair for us to consider that as a practical matter, America historically has sought back-channel contacts with such groups and entities.

    While Trump's stunning direct engagement with the Taliban. an indigenous revolutionary group hostile to the United States and its allied Afghan government, appears to have departed the back-channel approach, is it not fair to consider the Trump initiative as a more transparent and genuine approach to diplomacy?

    It may be helpful to contrast Trump's rather bold, if not impulsive, direct negotiations with the Taliban with the more nuanced, cautious 1968-1969 diplomatic method that the United States applied in confronting the issue(s) surrounding the possible presence of National Liberation Front, aka Viet Cong, at the Paris Peace Talks.

    As I understand the circumstances. the United States and the Saigon government wanted negotiations only with the North Vietnamese government, and viewed the NLF as a terrorist/revolutionary group.

    Conversely, the North Vietnamese desired to negotiate only with the foreign United States invader, shun the South Vietnamese government, and viewed the NLF as an an legitimate organization, and insisted on its presence at the conference table.

    A diplomatic dance began in April, 1968 and went back and forth for nine months. In January, 1969, the issue was resolved with a nuanced settlement which yielded a symbolic round negotiating table, which conveyed the image of an all-inclusive, equally legitimate "Their Side," which included the NLF, and "Our Side," which included the Thieu regime.

    "In every revolutionary conflict, the acceptance of the guerrillas as a negotiating partner has proved to be the single most important obstacle to negotiations, for it obliges the government to recognize the legal status of the enemy determined to overthrow it"---Henry Kissinger
    Reference: https://defenceindepth.co/2017/05/19...-january-1969/

    Does not the Trump Taliban initiative, when measured against the labored posturing of the pre-Vietnam Peace negotiations period, suggest only an accelerated process which in the end, resulted in a very similar product?
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; August 28th, 2021 at 11:10 AM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  14. #2924
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Have we become a nation where it is acceptable to now deal with terrorists in the first place, and then give approval if the outcome is favorable to us – and then trust terrorists to hold to their promises?
    Lee, agree with your skepticism. The merits of the idiom "A leopard can not change its spots" comes to mind.

    To illustrate, I disagreed, and actually still disagree, with President Reagan's decision to permit direct U.S.-PLO contacts, because I simply do not trust terrorists, nor do I like the idea of dealing with such murderers and kidnappers.

    While Reagan may have appeared principled with his preliminary "back-channel" approach to the PLO, and stood by his precondition for U.S. recognition of the PLO that it must recognize Israel's right to exist...

    For a period of nine months, the Reagan Administration conducted secret discussions through an intermediary with Yasir Arafat, the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, according to American participants in the effort.

    They said that the purpose of the talks was consistent with previous attempts by the Carter Administration to persuade the Palestinian leaders to accept the American offer of recognition of their organization in return for acceptance by the P.L.O. of Israel's right to exist.
    Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/19/w...-with-plo.html

    "The Palestine Liberation Organization today issued a statement in which it accepted United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism. These have long been our conditions for a substantive dialogue. They have been met. Therefore I have authorized the State Department to enter into a substantive dialogue with PLO representatives. The Palestine Liberation Organization must live up to its statements. In particular it must demonstrate that its renunciation of terrorism is pervasive and permanent. "
    Reference: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...-december-1988

    ... I thought Arafat's words worthless, and that Reagan's initiative smacked of naivety. It now seems that subsequent PLO/Arafat practices and behaviors seem to have proven the merits of my initial concerns...

    WHY ARAFAT BACKED SADDAM
    Reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-1391b0e3b452/

    ARAFAT SUPPORTS IRAQ-BUT DECISION MAY COST HIM AND THE PLO
    Reference: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...526-story.html

    Thus, in the Wye River Accords of 1998, the Clinton administration and Israel, now led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, took the terrorist at his word when he promised, yet again, to crack down on terror, this time in exchange for a pull back of Israeli forces (which had entered the territories in response to terror attacks), the ceding of additional territory to PA control, and even the release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners — many of whom had been incarcerated for terrorism offenses.

    The violence never stopped. Yet, with his presidency winding down in 2000 and desperate for an accomplishment that might balance a record besmirched by scandal, President Clinton boldly sought a final time to forge a comprehensive settlement. He brought Arafat and yet another new Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, to Camp David. Under intense U.S. pressure, Israel offered the creation of a Palestinian state over 90 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with its capital to be in East Jerusalem. In a move comprehensible only if one accepts that Arafat was incorrigibly devoted to Israel's extermination — in which case, it was entirely comprehensible — Arafat rejected this stunning offer, with poison-pill insistence that millions of Palestinians be accorded a right of return to Israel.
    Reference: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2004/11...yasser-arafat/


    Time Line of Second (Al-Aqsa) Intifada
    Chronology of Intifada events since 2000
    Reference: http://mideastweb.org/second_intifada_timeline.htm

    The administration of President George W. Bush let it be known that Arafat would no longer be dealt with.
    Reference: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2004/11...yasser-arafat/

    Nah, I simply do not trust terrorists to keep their word, because they most probably consider their words only as a weapon in their arsenals.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; August 28th, 2021 at 01:19 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  15. #2925
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,352
    Correction to post 2923:

    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Lee, in my opinion, you are correct in that America has never overtly dealt directly with terrorists. The same may be said of its engagement with hostile indigenous revolutionary groups or hostile governments overthrown by violent revolution.
    The comment should read:

    "Lee, in my opinion, you are correct in that America has never overtly dealt directly with terrorists. The same may be said of its engagement with hostile indigenous revolutionary groups or hostile governments enabled by violent revolution."
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 15 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 15 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •