• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump Will Win the Nomination

RJKarl said:
You mean leaving Iraq on by the rules of the treaty signed by W?
Click to expand...

i mean fulfilling a campaign promise to leave Iraq and Afghanistan and announcing it despite warnings of the danger.
 
Deacs89 said:
i mean fulfilling a campaign promise to leave Iraq and Afghanistan and announcing it despite warnings of the danger.
Click to expand...

W signed a treaty with Iraq saying we had to be out by a certain date. He had ZERO choice in Iraq unless we broke a treaty and OCCUPIED a sovereign nation against their will. What part of this don't you understand?
 
Last edited:
Deacs89 said:
What is Hilary's ?
Click to expand...

Funny you ask, because Wikipedia has a pretty nice summary. I don't think Trump has given 1/100th of the consideration Hillary has to the country:

Clinton supports President Barack Obama's decision to keep 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the end of his term in January 2017.[250] She has said that the primary goal of these forces should be to support and train the Afghan National Army rather than to engage in "on-the-ground combat."[250] When asked in June 2014 about U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Clinton said that it would depend upon "conditions on the ground and what was being asked for."[250]

As Secretary of State under Obama, Clinton advocated more hawkish policies than other senior administration officials; "Clinton's more activist philosophy" occasionally clashed with Obama's "instincts toward restraint."[251] Clinton supported the 2009 increase in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.[250] During the administration's Afghanistan War review in 2010, Clinton endorsed General Stanley McChrystal's recommendation for 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal (ultimately accepted by Obama) for 30,000 troops.[251]

In January 2010, Clinton supported a $500 million plan developed by NATO, Britain, and the Afghan government to reintegrate low-level Taliban insurgents into Afghan society. The plan, to be funded by a "Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund,"[252] Clinton set three end conditions for any reintegration of insurgents: the renunciation of violence, a break with al-Qaeda, and a commitment to abide by Afghan law, including an Afghan Constitution guaranteeing "the rights of all individuals, especially women."[252][253] Mary Akrami of the Afghan Women Skills Development Center, were "initially dubious" of the plan, given the Taliban's record of threatening and attacking girls and women.[252] Marc Grossman (who served as U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the time) stated that "the moral ambiguity of talking to insurgents was clarified by our commitment to the principles Secretary Clinton had laid out before we started to talk."[253]

U.S.-Taliban talks lasted from mid-2011 to March 2012 and were ultimately unsuccessful.[253] In October 2011, Clinton said that a door for a negotiated peace as part of an inclusive political process was still open to the Taliban, and that the Taliban would face "unrelenting" attacks if they refused.[253] Clinton also said at the time that Pakistani cooperation was vital to Afghan security and urged the Pakistani government "to deny safe haven to extremists sheltering across the border."[254] Clinton stated in her memoir Hard Choices: "I acknowledged, as I had many times before, that opening the door to negotiations with the Taliban would be hard to swallow for many Americans after so many years before. Reintegrating low-level fighters was odious enough; negotiating directly with top commanders was something else entirely. But diplomacy would be easy if we had to talk only to our friends. That's not how peace is made."[255]

During internal U.S. government talks in 2011-12, Clinton was highly skeptical of the exchange of five Taliban detainees for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Clinton pushed for stricter conditions as part of any agreement and was "disinclined to trust the Taliban or the Haqqani network in Pakistan," which held Bergdahl prisoner.[256]
 
TownieDeac said:
Funny you ask, because Wikipedia has a pretty nice summary. I don't think Trump has given 1/100th of the consideration Hillary has to the country:

Clinton supports President Barack Obama's decision to keep 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the end of his term in January 2017.[250] She has said that the primary goal of these forces should be to support and train the Afghan National Army rather than to engage in "on-the-ground combat."[250] When asked in June 2014 about U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Clinton said that it would depend upon "conditions on the ground and what was being asked for."[250]

As Secretary of State under Obama, Clinton advocated more hawkish policies than other senior administration officials; "Clinton's more activist philosophy" occasionally clashed with Obama's "instincts toward restraint."[251] Clinton supported the 2009 increase in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.[250] During the administration's Afghanistan War review in 2010, Clinton endorsed General Stanley McChrystal's recommendation for 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal (ultimately accepted by Obama) for 30,000 troops.[251]

In January 2010, Clinton supported a $500 million plan developed by NATO, Britain, and the Afghan government to reintegrate low-level Taliban insurgents into Afghan society. The plan, to be funded by a "Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund,"[252] Clinton set three end conditions for any reintegration of insurgents: the renunciation of violence, a break with al-Qaeda, and a commitment to abide by Afghan law, including an Afghan Constitution guaranteeing "the rights of all individuals, especially women."[252][253] Mary Akrami of the Afghan Women Skills Development Center, were "initially dubious" of the plan, given the Taliban's record of threatening and attacking girls and women.[252] Marc Grossman (who served as U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the time) stated that "the moral ambiguity of talking to insurgents was clarified by our commitment to the principles Secretary Clinton had laid out before we started to talk."[253]

U.S.-Taliban talks lasted from mid-2011 to March 2012 and were ultimately unsuccessful.[253] In October 2011, Clinton said that a door for a negotiated peace as part of an inclusive political process was still open to the Taliban, and that the Taliban would face "unrelenting" attacks if they refused.[253] Clinton also said at the time that Pakistani cooperation was vital to Afghan security and urged the Pakistani government "to deny safe haven to extremists sheltering across the border."[254] Clinton stated in her memoir Hard Choices: "I acknowledged, as I had many times before, that opening the door to negotiations with the Taliban would be hard to swallow for many Americans after so many years before. Reintegrating low-level fighters was odious enough; negotiating directly with top commanders was something else entirely. But diplomacy would be easy if we had to talk only to our friends. That's not how peace is made."[255]

During internal U.S. government talks in 2011-12, Clinton was highly skeptical of the exchange of five Taliban detainees for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Clinton pushed for stricter conditions as part of any agreement and was "disinclined to trust the Taliban or the Haqqani network in Pakistan," which held Bergdahl prisoner.[256]
Click to expand...

is this a plan ? looks like an outline on where clinton didn't agree with Obama
 
He didn't have zero choice. He wanted it to go through and despite a majority of the right in senate wanting to stay behind he virtually did nothing but watch all talks break down and fail. He wanted out and he got his wish.
 
Deacs89 said:
He didn't have zero choice. He wanted it to go through and despite a majority of the right in senate wanting to stay behind he virtually did nothing but watch all talks break down and fail. He wanted out and he got his wish.
Click to expand...

You are wrong! The ONLY way to leave more people behind was to BREAK a AGREEMENT signed by W. We had NO RIGHT to leave any more people there if Iraq said no.

What a majority on the right in the Senate wanted was totally irrelevant. Iraq is not part of the US. What RWers in the Senate wanted has no bearing on a binding agreement.
 
RJKarl said:
You are wrong! The ONLY way to leave more people behind was to BREAK a AGREEMENT signed by W. We had NO RIGHT to leave any more people there if Iraq said no.

What a majority on the right in the Senate wanted was totally irrelevant. Iraq is not part of the US. What RWers in the Senate wanted has no bearing on a binding agreement.
Click to expand...

So we have bush to thank for getting us out of two wars?
 
The date that we left Iraq was set by W. Of course, he also created that war (and allowed ISIS to be created) and many of the dangers in this world due his heinous and immoral war.
 
Deacs89 said:
What is Hilary's ?
Click to expand...

So you are cool with just waiting to see a mystery plan from a candidate with no experience whatsoever in anything regarding government?

why not just put the candidate's names over 35 born in the USA on a big wheel and spin it, and whoever it lands on just roll with that?
 
WakeandBake said:
So you are cool with just waiting to see a mystery plan from a candidate with no experience whatsoever in anything regarding government?

***
Click to expand...

Not when you put it like that. Once was enough, and certainly not twice in a row.
 
WakeandBake said:
yeah, there's no accounting for dumbfuckery in america. Kudos to your party for its cultivation of that demographic
Click to expand...

If only we could harness the collective wisdom of the Charlotte Rioteers... #sadpubsaresad
 
jhmd2000 said:
If only we could harness the collective wisdom of the Charlotte Rioteers... #sadpubsaresad
Click to expand...

no no, too much melanin for your party's brand of dumbfuckery. Stick to the milky white Indiana cross burners and North Carolina welfare check cashers and you'll be fine. Lots of wisdom there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top