JimCT

https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/?hc_ref=ARTveshlRL_kZ_7mnYeAWUcZuvrjlxfvNDw_U8VsaG2yJOCnhrHHe8OS1xsxTFOR0Hw&fref=nf Posts Mitt Romney August 18 at 9:12am · I will dispense for now from discussion of the moral character of the president's Charlottesville statements. Whether he intended to or not, what he communicated caused racists to rejoice, minorities to weep, and the vast heart of America to mourn. His apologists strain to explain that he didn't mean what we heard. But what we heard is now the reality, and unless it is addressed by the president as such, with unprecedented candor and strength, there may commence an unraveling of our national fabric. The leaders of our branches of military service have spoken immediately and forcefully, repudiating the implications of the president's words. Why? In part because the morale and commitment of our forces--made up and sustained by men and women of all races--could be in the balance. Our allies around the world are stunned and our enemies celebrate; America's ability to help secure a peaceful and prosperous world is diminished. And who would want to come to the aid of a country they perceive as racist if ever the need were to arise, as it did after 9/11? In homes across the nation, children are asking their parents what this means. Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims are as much a part of America as whites and Protestants. But today they wonder. Where might this lead? To bitterness and tears, or perhaps to anger and violence? The potential consequences are severe in the extreme. Accordingly, the president must take remedial action in the extreme. He should address the American people, acknowledge that he was wrong, apologize. State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100% to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville. Testify that there is no conceivable comparison or moral equivalency between the Nazis--who brutally murdered millions of Jews and who hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat--and the counter-protestors who were outraged to see fools parading the Nazi flag, Nazi armband and Nazi salute. And once and for all, he must definitively repudiate the support of David Duke and his ilk and call for every American to banish racists and haters from any and every association. This is a defining moment for President Trump. But much more than that, it is a moment that will define America in the hearts of our children. They are watching, our soldiers are watching, the world is watching. Mr. President, act now for the good of the country. Like Commen

Glad to hear the good news!

At least this is one thing I'll never have to deal with. One more thing I can be thankful for today. http://www.askamanager.org/2017/08/i-ghosted-my-ex-and-shes-about-to-be-my-new-boss.html

More "reenactments" https://nyti.ms/2vWeZ59

Note: NOT THE ONION https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/msespn-pulls-asian-announcer-named-robert-lee-off-uva-game-avoid-offending-idiots/ MSESPN Pulls Asian Announcer Named Robert Lee Off UVa Game To Avoid Offending Idiots

As I've said, this would not have been my choice based on the little I know. I made the initial point that Trump's choice appears to be based on "informed opinions" from his military hierarchy, challenging the assertion (by S2S) that it was "immoral" and calculated to gain "political capital". That's all. Despite my misgivings, I defer (at this point) to the military professionals.

I presume the differences are in the ability of the Afghan government to sustain itself. It's logical to assume that has improved with the passage of time, but like I keep saying I don't have the information so must rely on the professionals who do. I'd prefer to be out - AFAIK there are no "good" choices in A-stan, only "less bad" ones.

How does it feel to know that you and Bannon are of the same mind? http://www.thedailybeast.com/bannons-breitbart-slams-trumps-flip-flop-on-afghanistan

As with S2S, your argument is not logical. "That was then, this is now." What may have taken 100k force then given the reality on the ground no longer exists (15 years later). The issue is what is the reality now, what will this increase do to improve the situation, and is whatever improvement results worth it for the US? As I say above, my inclination would be to drawdown, not increase. But I'll acknowledge that I lack solid information as to how this may change the situation there, and the cost to withdraw vs the cost to expand.

I'd prefer to be out of Afghanistan. I think the lives lost and money spent exceed the benefit to the US. Apparently the military hierarchy thinks that imprudent at this time. I expect they know more than I do and have better information than I do. Your argument against him changing his position is what is wrong with every political endeavor these days. Each decision should be weighed without penalty against any prior stance and be based solely on current facts and circumstances. But in the US we seem to have lost that ability, forcing people to sustain incorrect positions merely for the sake of "not changing". What folly! As for why he ran? I have no idea. I think I've made that clear for a couple of years now.

I give the generals the benefit of the doubt, especially the ones with first hand experience there. They know well the cost of staying (Kelly lost his son there, remember) and some sense of the cost of leaving. They can say what is achievable with military force and what is not. If your not going to listen to the professional military and their analysis, and dismiss any recommendation for "more military" as self-serving, why bother asking them? Either you trust them to do their jobs credibly or you don't. I do, sounds like you don't.

Even thru your "red mist" of disgust for Trump you can identify your logical fallacy. Neither of those decisions is connected - he could have listened to his advisors in one and completely ignored them in the other. You are free to inveigh against the substance of this decision, but asserting that he did this for "political capital" seems far-fetched. Or are you going to argue that Trump "appeased" the generals in order to buy them into "his side" on future issues? If so, you impugn them unjustly.

Or he could have listened to his professional military hierarchy. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/opinions/for-trump-generals-afghanistan-is-personal-bergen/index.html

Off the top of my head (i.e., without any research) that makes no sense. IIRC the formation of AQ by OBL was due to the first Iraq war and the presence of US troops in Saudi staging for the invasion of Kuwait (ignoring for the moment that there was already a US military presence in SA and the Gulf states), and the lingering presence. [Ignore OBLs disdain for the Saudi royals and their taste for Western excesses.] The phrase "neocon lies" seems directed at the 2d Iraq war ~2003. Now, if he is saying that the first Iraq war (i.e., the retaking of Kuwait) was due to neocon lies, I'd dispute that. The taking of Kuwait by Saddam-led Iraq seems like hard physical evidence. I've yet to hear anyone suggest that retaking Kuwait was an incorrect move by the US-led coalition. Does anyone here want to take up that argument?