Trump starts pulling troops out of Afghanistan

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
WWWTT
Trump starts pulling troops out of Afghanistan

First the link

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-orders-troops-out-of-afghanistan_us_5c1c5c0ce4b0407e9078fd10

Not so sure how babblers are going to react to Trump doing this?

WWWTT

At first appearance this would be the end of the longest war the US imperialist forces have ever been involved in. 

And for all of those progressives that thought Hillary should have won in 2016, I hate to say it (not really) but, you’re not a progressive!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

They should have supported the man of peace.

Next up,  with the money this saves:  health care for everyone!

NDPP

The history of US troop strength in Afghanistan has been up and down. Let's see what the actual facts on the ground may bring. More on Afghanistan here:

The Afghan People Will Win #27

http://rabble.ca/comment/4708361#comment-4708361

WWWTT

Ya sure NDPP we’ll have to wait and see what actually happens. 

But I predicted this Trump character wasn’t a war pig like Obama, and so far my prediction is panning out. 

I also predicted that a lot of so called progressives would get pissed off that if they’re favourite punching bag Trump ever turned out to be anything less than a war pig than Obama was, they would get very uncomfortable. Kind of makes you wonder who the war pigs really are hey?

I wonder what Amy Goodman and Democracy Now will say about this? Or even rabble? I notice whenever Justin does something remotely progressive, rabble, is quick to shower him with praise  

 

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

They should have supported the man of peace.

Next up,  with the money this saves:  health care for everyone!

Right on schedule Mr Magoo!

bekayne

WWWTT wrote:

Ya sure NDPP we’ll have to wait and see what actually happens. 

But I predicted this Trump character wasn’t a war pig like Obama, and so far my prediction is panning out. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/11/13/the-u-s-never-drop...

According to U.S. Air Forces Central Command data, manned and unmanned aircraft released 5,213 weapons between January and the end of September 2018.

Previously, 2010 held the record for weapons dropped on Afghanistan with 5,101 releases recorded in total. That was a deadly year which saw 711 ISAF troops and 1,271 civilians killed. Towards the end of Obama's presidency, the number of bombs dropped declined with 947 instances in 2015 and 1,337 in 2016. Since President Trump announced a new Afghan strategy last August and committed more troops to the country, the number of bombs dropped by the U.S. coalition has surged dramatically.

NDPP

"American presidents come and go. The vital interests of America remain." - Bill Clinton

WWWTT

Clinton wasn’t talking about Vietnam was he? But we’ll see. I’d like to be optimistic, and this announcement is encouraging 

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/9nRLhoPQzRo

"Trump planning Afghanistan withdrawal."

Again, I'll believe it when I see it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

This doesn't vindicate the argument that keeping Hillary out was worth subjecting us to Trump.  OK, Trump may have done this(there's no reason to assume it's not a trick, but we'll see)but there's no way it erases his support of the alt-right and his encouragement of a massive increase in toxic hatred and violence against women, people of color, LGBTQ people and immigrants.  

Following your line of argument, it's fine that Nixon and Kissinger organized and supported a "free-market fascist" coup in Chile and pushed for massive cuts in the Great Society programs, because they finally brought U.S. troops home from Vietnam in January 1973.

 

Paladin1

Using history as an indicator of future behavior it's quite plausable that Clinton would have been quite the war monger. Her record as a secratary of state? Holy shit balls.

As for the toxic violence the US left is hardly a bunch of bleeting sheep. You wear a MAGA hat and you're liable to get a steel bar to the head. But "it's okay".  *rolly eyes*

Nature abhors a vaccum they say. As the US pulls out other malign actors will slide into place. Going to be a real shitshow over there. I'd give it a few years and we'll be back, maybe under a lovely UN mission eh?  Trump's pulling soldiers out of the middle east, that's gotta burn a lot of people.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Using history as an indicator of future behavior it's quite plausable that Clinton would have been quite the war monger. Her record as a secratary of state? Holy shit balls.

As for the toxic violence the US left is hardly a bunch of bleeting sheep. You wear a MAGA hat and you're liable to get a steel bar to the head. But "it's okay".  *rolly eyes*

Nature abhors a vaccum they say. As the US pulls out other malign actors will slide into place. Going to be a real shitshow over there. I'd give it a few years and we'll be back, maybe under a lovely UN mission eh?  Trump's pulling soldiers out of the middle east, that's gotta burn a lot of people.

I don't defend Hillary on foreign policy.  But clearly, the last two years have proved she wasn't SINGULARLY evil on anything.

Paladin1

What we're seeing now is the birth of a new era that witnesses the US pulling back from their self-stylised world police role. Bases closing, black sites collapsing and disapearing, troops pulling back. Trump said he would do it and he is.

Can the ANA and ANP stand on their own legs against the Taliban and ISIS in Afghanistan? Absolutely not. It's a death sentence for our "allies". That's the price of doing business with the US.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Maybe Putin told him to pull out. 

I agree with Ken on this. Let's not use this as an opportunity to excuse his racism and hatred.

maybe Kim Jung Un asked him politely to please pull out. 

No one knows what his rationale is for doing this and his reasoning can end up to be quite scary and childish.

i doubt that he is sincerely interested in world peace or humanitarian initiatives. He is a dangerous and unpredictable buffoon IMO and although I want the troupe out of there I don't think very highly of his decision making abilities or motives.

this decision of his can be a catalyst for the Republicans to finally get rid of him and replace him with another dirt bag.

i want Trump gone. Period.

Paladin1

Misfit wrote:

Maybe Putin told him to pull out.

maybe Kim Jung Un asked him politely to please pull out. 

 

 

 

Maybe he read rabble ;)

 

Out of Afghanistan NOW!

Trump: Okey dokey

quizzical

Trump just fired dude who resigned lol 

Cody87

Is it not obvious that Trump unlilaterally pulling out of Syria and reducing the involvement in Afghanistan by the US military is just him lashing out at the military industrial complex because of the Mueller investigation and his pending impeachment by the new House?*

*(not saying the Senate will convict btw)

The people that control the Uniparty are going after his interests, so he's going after theirs.

 

He's not doing it because it's good for Syria or for America or because it's good for "the troops that need to come home." He's doing it to hurt those that benefit from war, yes for selfish reasons so don't think I'm giving him credit here.

voice of the damned

Misfit wrote:

Maybe Putin told him to pull out. 

I agree with Ken on this. Let's not use this as an opportunity to excuse his racism and hatred.

maybe Kim Jung Un asked him politely to please pull out. 

No one knows what his rationale is for doing this and his reasoning can end up to be quite scary and childish.

i doubt that he is sincerely interested in world peace or humanitarian initiatives. He is a dangerous and unpredictable buffoon IMO and although I want the troupe out of there I don't think very highly of his decision making abilities or motives.

this decision of his can be a catalyst for the Republicans to finally get rid of him and replace him with another dirt bag.

i want Trump gone. Period.

For the past few decades, Trump has been on record as being pretty much an isolationist, and is probably the only person holding such views to make it to the presidency since the concept of isolationism became relevant in US foreign-policy.

So, I honestly wouldn't rule it out that his motivations here are no more complex than "Why the hell should good old American boys have to die to stop a bunch of ragheads from killing each other?" Sure, it's probably also the policy that Putin and Erdogan want, for their own equally venal reasons, but that doesn't mean that they're neccessarily the force behind it. (If Russia, for one, were dictating Trump's actions, I think US policy toward Russia would be quite different right now.)

Anyway, as someone who wants all foreign troops out of Afghanistan and Syria, two cheers from me on this. I'm still a little worried about Trump's underlying reasoning, however, since the isolationist rant in my second paragraph isn't quite my idea of clear-headed statecraft.

NDPP

'It's a war that can't be won, but Washington won't admit defeat.' (and vid)

https://twitter.com/IntheNow_tweet/status/1049585787451379712

Misfit Misfit's picture

VOTD, Cody, and Ken I agree. I was speculating on reasons why he made the decision to try to convey his lack of ethical depth in his decision making.

while I strongly support US troups leaving the area I am ill at ease with his motives for doing so.

NDPP

"Hillary Clinton might have come closer than any top US official to conceding the horrendous long-term cost of the CIA's proxy war in Afghanistan: 'The people we are fighting there we funded 20 years ago.' She soon went on to replicate that policy to destabilize Syria..."

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1080646223638482944

Sean in Ottawa

Trump is not so much an isolationist. He is as he says amerika first. He does not want to engage with other countries in alliances but is happy to bully.

I do believe that he wants to pull the troops out of Afghanistan -- but not becuase he has nice feelings about it or wants to leave it alone. He would prefer to bomb it from a safe distance. Cheaper.

I don't view his position to the world as any better than any other American. Just a difference in how his aggression would manifest itself. Trump is not a guy who feels like he needs to pretend his aggression is about building a new society or government or helping anyone.

Let's not forget his first apporach to Afghanistan was to drop the biggest bomb ever dropped on that country.

Of course some here will fall over themselves pretending that he has some kind of positive feelings for the rest of the world in a way that he does not have for those who live in the same country he lives in.

Trump is not about peace: he is about saving money and making aggression cheaper. He aslo wants in every way to be seen as different and smarter and so anything anyone else did cannot be supported. Finally he is making new personal allies. I am sure he would be happy to see people die in service of his new alliances. Trump, the guy who wanted a big military parade, wants his own wars and his own victims and victory. Afghanistan has the good fortune to be a war that previous presidents supported.

When in trouble politically Trump will not mind someone in another country to die for his distraction. Don't imagine for a second he is different from other US presidents in this regard -- he just won't want to participate in a war previous presidents engaged in.

 

josh
WWWTT

And ya Trump is basically right. He just blew the doors off half of the so called progressives in the west because I doubt any so called progressive politicians in the US would call out a Reagan policy. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

He was right that terrorists were attacking both the legitimate Afghan government and its SSR neighbors. What he failed to mention is they were funded, armed and trained by the US.

josh

I never knew these “terrorists” were going into Russia.  Thanks for the history lesson Messrs. Trump, WT and Kropotkin.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't think they went to Russia, that's why I said SSR's. So I am do take it that in this age of Trump that all one has to do is read what he says and presume that it wrong.

Operation Cyclone happened and Trump's recounting of some of it either rightly (or wrongly as he apt to do) does not change the history.

As it turns out I was partly responsible for funding that war.

voice of the damned

Trump is not so much an isolationist. He is as he says amerika first. He does not want to engage with other countries in alliances but is happy to bully.

Actually, the most prominent isolationist group in history was called The America First Committee.

And when I use the term "isolationist", I don't mean it to preclude bullying, even of the military sort. It's more a question of which parts of the world one thinks the US should be militarily engaged. Pat Buchanan is an old-school, 1930s-style isolationist, but was a pretty fervent supporter of US aggression against left-wing goverments in Latin America.

I'll admit that Trump at present might not qualify as an isolationist in the original, Charles Lindbergh sense of the word, though personally that might have more to do with the influences and pressures brought to bear upon the office of the president, rather than his own original views.  

WWWTT

I remember hearing something a couple years ago that the US was actually protecting the poppy growth in Afghanistan for heroin to use in their wars. 

If there was any truth to this, and the rise of synthetic opiats, it would actually make sense to get out of Afghanistan now since their product is now obsolete. 

Paladin1

Perhaps I spoke too soon about the US having Iraq fatigue (along with Afghanistan fatigue)  

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/middle_...

 

I hope they atleast effect a pullout of Afghanistan. 

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Of course some here will fall over themselves pretending that he has some kind of positive feelings for the rest of the world in a way that he does not have for those who live in the same country he lives in.

 

 

I have a tendency to let sleeping dogs lie Sean, but who do you think the 'some' are? 

This is right on target for that which Ken is continually pestering me. I think it's totally legitimate to suggest that we have some disagreement on these sort of issues.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

He was right that terrorists were attacking both the legitimate Afghan government and its SSR neighbors. What he failed to mention is they were funded, armed and trained by the US.

Yes exactly, but Trump likely didn't and doesn't understand that it was the S.U. and not Russia, and wouldn't have been aware of the difference. 

The point is, nobody should put any faith in anything Trump says.

montgomery

Paladin1 wrote:

Perhaps I spoke too soon about the US having Iraq fatigue (along with Afghanistan fatigue)  

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/middle_...

 

I hope they atleast effect a pullout of Afghanistan. 

It's great spin politics to announce a pullout of Afghanistan or any of their occupied countries. But they seldom do. They do however move troops around in order to keep them out of the bombing from 30,000' footprint. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pulling out of Afghanistan to put more troops in Iraq is an essentially meaningless change.  It's just a shift from one unwinnable war to another unwinnable war.

montgomery

Ken Burch wrote:

Pulling out of Afghanistan to put more troops in Iraq is an essentially meaningless change.  It's just a shift from one unwinnable war to another unwinnable war.

Depends on what you understand as the meaning of winnable. To begin with, it's US rhetoric of the 'other' political party and shouldn't be the way their wars are framed for consumption of the rest of the world.

We don't care if they 'win' their wars. Or at least I don't. I care that the people of the invaded country wins their war. At the present the US has won their war in Iraq and Afghanistan because winning means that the US has temporary control over those countries. 

In order to understand this better, think of Syria as being a war won by Russia.

Not to suggest Ken, that you don't have a point on the US shuffling of the troops around! 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Actually, the term "winnable" was first used in a debate WITHIN the "other" US political party, regarding the conflict in Vietnam.  It was generally used by more moderate opponents of the war, who preferred framing the debate as a question of whether that war could ever actually result in a US "victory"(which would have meant, in that case, the continued existence of the essentially imaginary country known as "South Vietnam") instead of addressing the relative morality of continued US involvement in the war or the question of whether such involvement was, in fact, a form of imperialism.

For the record, I regard the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as unwinnable, immoral, AND imperialist, and have opposed both invasions from the start, as have virtually everyone who posts on this board, from what I've read in my years posting here.

montgomery

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, the term "winnable" was first used in a debate WITHIN the "other" US political party, regarding the conflict in Vietnam.

Yeah, I guess that's what I said, except I was talking now, not then.

Quote:
For the record, I regard the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as unwinnable, immoral, AND imperialist, and have opposed both invasions from the start, as have virtually everyone who posts on this board, from what I've read in my years posting here.

I'm glad to hear they are! I'll keep a close eye out to ensure you're right. And I wish it were so for some of the other countries the US has started wars with, or is contemplating a war with. Cause we know now it ain't don't we Ken.

I value your support on dragging them out of the bushes. I think it's a good thing to do too! If anybody is supportive of US wars then I think we should know, in order to have the opportunity of trying to change their minds. 

That's my opinion without any exceptions Ken. I think it's a good position to take for the NDP. And I hope that if anybody doesn't agree, they won't sit on the fence with it.

Are you with me Ken? Do you think it's something a newcomer to the forum should be doing?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

montgomery wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, the term "winnable" was first used in a debate WITHIN the "other" US political party, regarding the conflict in Vietnam.

Yeah, I guess that's what I said, except I was talking now, not then.

Quote:
For the record, I regard the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as unwinnable, immoral, AND imperialist, and have opposed both invasions from the start, as have virtually everyone who posts on this board, from what I've read in my years posting here.

I'm glad to hear they are! I'll keep a close eye out to ensure you're right. And I wish it were so for some of the other countries the US has started wars with, or is contemplating a war with. Cause we know now it ain't don't we Ken.

I value your support on dragging them out of the bushes. I think it's a good thing to do too! If anybody is supportive of US wars then I think we should know, in order to have the opportunity of trying to change their minds. 

That's my opinion without any exceptions Ken. I think it's a good position to take for the NDP. And I hope that if anybody doesn't agree, they won't sit on the fence with it.

Are you with me Ken? Do you think it's something a newcomer to the forum should be doing?

There isn't anybody on this board who is or ever has been an apologist for US militarism or imperialism.                            

And nobody here is obligated to prove that to you.            

And NDPP, one of the posters you've targeted here, has been the single most outspoken opponent of US hegemony on this board.  Implying that he's a pro-NATO sycophant is like accusing Trotsky of being a Stalinist.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             And why on earth do you think anybody here needs to be "dragged out of the bushes"?  You seem to think there's a huge group of secret reactionaries on this board, but there's no justification for your belief on that.  There was ONE poster who simply said he wasn't totally anti-NATO...and even that poster said he's a critic of a lot of what NATO does.  The fact that one person here expressed that does not justify your apparent idea that there are people here who are hidden imperalists.  You are smearing people here who've done nothing to deserve it, and you are essentially demanding that everybody prove their bona fides to you when that is totally not your place to do so.  You're acting like some sort of an online Lavrenti Beria or something.

What is it going to take to get you to get out of Grand Inquisitor mode and simply have reasoned discussions on the issues?

montgomery

Ken Burch wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, the term "winnable" was first used in a debate WITHIN the "other" US political party, regarding the conflict in Vietnam.

Yeah, I guess that's what I said, except I was talking now, not then.

Quote:
For the record, I regard the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as unwinnable, immoral, AND imperialist, and have opposed both invasions from the start, as have virtually everyone who posts on this board, from what I've read in my years posting here.

I'm glad to hear they are! I'll keep a close eye out to ensure you're right. And I wish it were so for some of the other countries the US has started wars with, or is contemplating a war with. Cause we know now it ain't don't we Ken.

I value your support on dragging them out of the bushes. I think it's a good thing to do too! If anybody is supportive of US wars then I think we should know, in order to have the opportunity of trying to change their minds. 

That's my opinion without any exceptions Ken. I think it's a good position to take for the NDP. And I hope that if anybody doesn't agree, they won't sit on the fence with it.

Are you with me Ken? Do you think it's something a newcomer to the forum should be doing?

There isn't anybody on this board who is or ever has been an apologist for US militarism or imperialism.                            

And nobody here is obligated to prove that to you.            

And NDPP, one of the posters you've targeted here, has been the single most outspoken opponent of US hegemony on this board.  Implying that he's a pro-NATO sycophant is like accusing Trotsky of being a Stalinist.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             And why on earth do you think anybody here needs to be "dragged out of the bushes"?  You seem to think there's a huge group of secret reactionaries on this board, but there's no justification for your belief on that.  There was ONE poster who simply said he wasn't totally anti-NATO...and even that poster said he's a critic of a lot of what NATO does.  The fact that one person here expressed that does not justify your apparent idea that there are people here who are hidden imperalists.  You are smearing people here who've done nothing to deserve it, and you are essentially demanding that everybody prove their bona fides to you when that is totally not your place to do so.  You're acting like some sort of an online Lavrenti Beria or something.

What is it going to take to get you to get out of Grand Inquisitor mode and simply have reasoned discussions on the issues?

Ken, the discussion? The topic? Not the personal attacks all the time? hmmmm? 

Ken, I  now know what the facts are on the people on this board being pr-US aggression as opposed to anti-US aggression which we both support. And I've been very gentle with the foot draggers.

Do you think it's not a good idea to visit the issue in order to try to convince those who don't agree with us. Especially those who side with the US on Venezuela?

Ken, why do you keep ragging on me for taking the same position as Mr. K and S in O? My politics are the  perfect NDP match! Do you think I should waffle like the Liberals?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

montgomery wrote:

Ken, the discussion? The topic? Not the personal attacks all the time? hmmmm? 

Ken, I  now know what the facts are on the people on this board being pr-US aggression as opposed to anti-US aggression which we both support. And I've been very gentle with the foot draggers.

Do you think it's not a good idea to visit the issue in order to try to convince those who don't agree with us. Especially those who side with the US on Venezuela?

Ken, why do you keep ragging on me for taking the same position as Mr. K and S in O? My politics are the  perfect NDP match! Do you think I should waffle like the Liberals?

This is just plain nuts. I come here to see what other generally leftish Canadians (and non-Canadians who post here) think about the issues of the day. I occasionally post something I think deserves notice, and even less often I get into a debate about an issue. I don't think I'm unique in this attitude to babble. montgomery seems to think that this is some sort of crucible where the mettle of the posters is tested against his version of reality. Forget it pal, you are just a self-important nobody. Participate in the discussion like anybody else, or get lost.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, the term "winnable" was first used in a debate WITHIN the "other" US political party, regarding the conflict in Vietnam.

Yeah, I guess that's what I said, except I was talking now, not then.

Quote:
For the record, I regard the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as unwinnable, immoral, AND imperialist, and have opposed both invasions from the start, as have virtually everyone who posts on this board, from what I've read in my years posting here.

I'm glad to hear they are! I'll keep a close eye out to ensure you're right. And I wish it were so for some of the other countries the US has started wars with, or is contemplating a war with. Cause we know now it ain't don't we Ken.

I value your support on dragging them out of the bushes. I think it's a good thing to do too! If anybody is supportive of US wars then I think we should know, in order to have the opportunity of trying to change their minds. 

That's my opinion without any exceptions Ken. I think it's a good position to take for the NDP. And I hope that if anybody doesn't agree, they won't sit on the fence with it.

Are you with me Ken? Do you think it's something a newcomer to the forum should be doing?

There isn't anybody on this board who is or ever has been an apologist for US militarism or imperialism.                            

And nobody here is obligated to prove that to you.            

And NDPP, one of the posters you've targeted here, has been the single most outspoken opponent of US hegemony on this board.  Implying that he's a pro-NATO sycophant is like accusing Trotsky of being a Stalinist.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             And why on earth do you think anybody here needs to be "dragged out of the bushes"?  You seem to think there's a huge group of secret reactionaries on this board, but there's no justification for your belief on that.  There was ONE poster who simply said he wasn't totally anti-NATO...and even that poster said he's a critic of a lot of what NATO does.  The fact that one person here expressed that does not justify your apparent idea that there are people here who are hidden imperalists.  You are smearing people here who've done nothing to deserve it, and you are essentially demanding that everybody prove their bona fides to you when that is totally not your place to do so.  You're acting like some sort of an online Lavrenti Beria or something.

What is it going to take to get you to get out of Grand Inquisitor mode and simply have reasoned discussions on the issues?

Ken, the discussion? The topic? Not the personal attacks all the time? hmmmm? 

Ken, I  now know what the facts are on the people on this board being pr-US aggression as opposed to anti-US aggression which we both support. And I've been very gentle with the foot draggers.

Do you think it's not a good idea to visit the issue in order to try to convince those who don't agree with us. Especially those who side with the US on Venezuela?

Ken, why do you keep ragging on me for taking the same position as Mr. K and S in O? My politics are the  perfect NDP match! Do you think I should waffle like the Liberals?

What do you mean by "ragging on" is this not an extremely offensive and sexist term?

Nobody wants to join you to berate other people in any purity test -- this business of rounding up allies is futile. You have no "mission" as you put it to educate here. Nobody respects the concept of you having a choice to be gentle with anyone. Absolutely nobody appreciates the creepy crap you write about "knowing what the facts are on the people on this board." I have no idea why the board is indulging you. I assume you are the second coming of Monty1, (banned for behaving exactly as you are now) and this version is no better than the last.

Paladin1

Michael Moriarity wrote:

This is just plain nuts. I come here to see what other generally leftish Canadians (and non-Canadians who post here) think about the issues of the day. I occasionally post something I think deserves notice, and even less often I get into a debate about an issue. I don't think I'm unique in this attitude to babble. montgomery seems to think that this is some sort of crucible where the mettle of the posters is tested against his version of reality. Forget it pal, you are just a self-important nobody. Participate in the discussion like anybody else, or get lost.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Nobody wants to join you to berate other people in any purity test -- this business of rounding up allies is futile. You have no "mission" as you put it to educate here. Nobody respects the concept of you having a choice to be gentle with anyone. Absolutely nobody appreciates the creepy crap you write about "knowing what the facts are on the people on this board." I have no idea why the board is indulging you. I assume you are the second coming of Monty1, (banned for behaving exactly as you are now) and this version is no better than the last.

In complete agereeement.

montgomery

Paladin1 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

This is just plain nuts. I come here to see what other generally leftish Canadians (and non-Canadians who post here) think about the issues of the day. I occasionally post something I think deserves notice, and even less often I get into a debate about an issue. I don't think I'm unique in this attitude to babble. montgomery seems to think that this is some sort of crucible where the mettle of the posters is tested against his version of reality. Forget it pal, you are just a self-important nobody. Participate in the discussion like anybody else, or get lost.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Nobody wants to join you to berate other people in any purity test -- this business of rounding up allies is futile. You have no "mission" as you put it to educate here. Nobody respects the concept of you having a choice to be gentle with anyone. Absolutely nobody appreciates the creepy crap you write about "knowing what the facts are on the people on this board." I have no idea why the board is indulging you. I assume you are the second coming of Monty1, (banned for behaving exactly as you are now) and this version is no better than the last.

In complete agereeement.

See the Venezuela topic where I've given you the benefit of the doubt about your support of the US. 

You'll also note that Kropotkin wasn't quite so gentle with you. 

Otherwise,  I'll just stay to the topic here on this thread.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

[What do you mean by "ragging on" is this not an extremely offensive and sexist term?

I had no idea it was an offensive and sexist term, but I apologize for using it if it really is?

Did you have anything to say about the topic of this thread Sean? What do you think? Do you think that Trump is just shuffling some of the US military around in order to concentrate forces where they will do the most evil? I do! 

montgomery

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Forget it pal, you are just a self-important nobody. Participate in the discussion like anybody else, or get lost.

And what do you think about the question being raised by the topic Michael? And then why not go to the Venezuela topic to see how Kropotkin has criticized Paladin? Me too but I was a bit gentler. We both sort of think that Palidin is getting it wrong on Venezuela and the US. And his position on Maduro and Venezuela is almost enough to make one weep in frustration. Should we  both ignore Paladin?

MegB

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

[What do you mean by "ragging on" is this not an extremely offensive and sexist term?

I had no idea it was an offensive and sexist term, but I apologize for using it if it really is?

Yes, it really is.