Trump endorses the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in freewheeling Cabinet meeting

[kevindavis007]

President Donald Trump spoke approvingly of the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan during a Wednesday Cabinet meeting as he made a number of inaccurate assertions about Russian and Afghan history.

Trump said the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to fight terrorists, which is not true. The president also said the Soviet Union went "bankrupt" because of its decadelong involvement in the Afghan War, which is inaccurate.

"Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan," Trump said.

Read More: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-endorses-1979-soviet-invasion-of-afghanistan-in-cabinet-meeting-2019-1


So he is upset that the Soviet Union is around no more? Of course his pal Vlad is upset as well.

[sneakypete]

The headline and 90 percent of the article are pure leftist bullshit and  spin.

[edpc]

"The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there," the president added. "The problem is it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt. They went into being called Russia again as opposed to the Soviet Union. A lot of these places you're reading about now are no longer part of Russia because of Afghanistan."


He’s talking out of his ass, as usual. The reason the Soviets went there was to support pro-communists, after a coup. The reason they got bogged down in Afghanistan and dissolved as the Soviet Union was due to Reagan era policies and support of the mujihadeen.

[sneakypete]

"The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there," the president added. "The problem is it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt. They went into being called Russia again as opposed to the Soviet Union. A lot of these places you're reading about now are no longer part of Russia because of Afghanistan."


He’s talking out of his ass, as usual. The reason the Soviets went there was to support pro-communists, after a coup. The reason they got bogged down in Afghanistan and dissolved as the Soviet Union was due to Reagan era policies and support of the mujihadeen.

@edpc

You are ignorant,or lying. Which is it?

Ever hear of a people named ChechensI

Ever heard of a place in Russia named Besfan,where Muslim insurgents took over a public school and started murdering Russian children in 2004?

Did you know that there are 15 Muslim Providences in Russia?

[edpc]

@edpc

You are ignorant,or lying. Which is it?

Ever hear of a people named ChechensI

Ever heard of a place in Russia named Besfan,where Muslim insurgents took over a public school and started murdering Russian children in 2004?

Did you know that there are 15 Muslim Providences in Russia?

None of what you said had anything to do with the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets. They were there to support pro-communists in the PDPA, after the 1978 Saur Revolution.

[Right_in_Virginia]

President Donald Trump spoke approvingly of the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan during a Wednesday Cabinet meeting as he made a number of inaccurate assertions about Russian and Afghan history.

Trump said the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to fight terrorists, which is not true. The president also said the Soviet Union went "bankrupt" because of its decadelong involvement in the Afghan War, which is inaccurate.

"Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan," Trump said.



Read More: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-endorses-1979-soviet-invasion-of-afghanistan-in-cabinet-meeting-2019-1


So he is upset that the Soviet Union is around no more? Of course his pal Vlad is upset as well.

For anyone  interested in what the President actually said and what he was talking about ... visit this thread.  I posted the President's cabinet meeting.  Damn good meeting, IMHO.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,346256.msg1881864/topicseen.html#msg1881864

[sneakypete]

None of what you said had anything to do with the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets. They were there to support pro-communists in the PDPA, after the 1978 Saur Revolution.

@edpc

Too simple of an answer for such a complex problem. Yes,they WERE supporting the pro-Communists because Russia was still a Communist nation. Do you somehow conclude that Islam was less of a danger to Communists than to non-Communists?

[Frank Cannon]

@edpc

Too simple of an answer for such a complex problem. Yes,they WERE supporting the pro-Communists because Russia was still a Communist nation. Do you somehow conclude that Islam was less of a danger to Communists than to non-Communists?

 

[edpc]

Do you somehow conclude that Islam was less of a danger to Communists than to non-Communists?

No, terrorist factions in the ME, at that period of time, reached that conclusion.


The Jerusalem Post said the Soviet secret police last year secured the release of three kidnaped Soviet diplomats in Beirut by castrating a relative of a radical Lebanese Shia Muslim leader, sending him the severed organs and then shooting the relative in the head.

-snip-

The newspaper quoted "observers in Jerusalem" as saying: "This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things--they don't talk. And this is the language Hezbollah understands."

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-07/news/mn-13892_1_soviets

[sneakypete]

No, terrorist factions in the ME, at that period of time, reached that conclusion.


The Jerusalem Post said the Soviet secret police last year secured the release of three kidnaped Soviet diplomats in Beirut by castrating a relative of a radical Lebanese Shia Muslim leader, sending him the severed organs and then shooting the relative in the head.

-snip-

The newspaper quoted "observers in Jerusalem" as saying: "This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things--they don't talk. And this is the language Hezbollah understands."

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-07/news/mn-13892_1_soviets

@edpc

The Soviets were always pretty direct when it came to dealing with attacks on "Holy Mother Russia". You and I might think that is silly,but it sure as hell ain't silly to them.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The President's whole point was the war in Afghanistan nearly bankrupted the Soviet Union. He will not allow the never-ending war in Afghanistan to do the same to the U.S. .

[kevindavis007]

The President's whole point was the war in Afghanistan nearly bankrupted the Soviet Union. He will not allow the never-ending war in Afghanistan to do the same to the U.S. .

BS....


We bankrupted the Soviet Union when they went in to prop up the COMMUNIST Government by backing the rebels. Which was the right thing to back then.

[Right_in_Virginia]

BS.... We bankrupted the Soviet Union when they went in to prop up the COMMUNIST Government by backing the rebels. Which was the right thing to back then.

How does this differ from what I said?

And what makes you so sure Afghanistan won't have the same affect on us?

[kevindavis007]

How does this differ from what I said?

And what makes you so sure Afghanistan won't have the same affect on us?

Cause we are not like Trump's favorite country.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Cause we are not like Trump's favorite country.

I know you don't like the President, Kevin.  But won't you please answer a question?

Why should we keep pouring money into a legacy 18 year old war that is at best a stalemate and in reality a loss?  How much of our blood and treasure can we deplete before we are ill prepared to take on a real war?

And is there not a better way to spend this money .... say for our border security?

[kevindavis007]

I know you don't like the President, Kevin.  But won't you please answer a question?

Why should we keep pouring money into a legacy 18 year old war that is at best a stalemate and in reality a loss?  How much of our blood and treasure can we deplete before we are ill prepared to take on a real war?

And is there not a better way to spend this money .... say for our border security?

You do realize the terrorist can come into this country via a plane by using a passport from a European country after they have been trained in that region?


I'm for border security as the next guy, but they will find ways to get around it. So yes I rather have us fight over there than here.

[Right_in_Virginia]

You do realize the terrorist can come into this country via a plane by using a passport from a European country after they have been trained in that region?


I'm for border security as the next guy, but they will find ways to get around it. So yes I rather have us fight over there than here.

You don't honestly think us losing in Afghanistan is stopping terrorists, do you?

[edpc]

The President's whole point was the war in Afghanistan nearly bankrupted the Soviet Union. He will not allow the never-ending war in Afghanistan to do the same to the U.S.

The massive size of the Soviet Union, cost of satellite nation central control from Moscow, with little ROI, and unsustainability of the communist model is what bankrupted them. They never had anywhere near the amount of personnel and material committed to Afghanistan, as we did in Vietnam. Additionally, the logistics of getting men and supplies there was much simpler and cheaper.

The president also wondered aloud, during the cabinet meeting, why Pakistan was not fighting in Afghanistan. There’s no delicate nuance to this: The entire reason why the Taliban exists, is because of Pakistani influence within the country.  It’s exactly what we do not want. He is simplistic and naïve in his understanding of regional world issues and history.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The massive size of the Soviet Union, cost of central control from Moscow, with little ROI, and unsustainability of the communist model is what bankrupted them.  They never had anywhere near the amount of personnel and material committed to Afghanistan, as we did in Vietnam. Additionally, the logistics of getting men and supplies there was much simpler and cheaper.

The president also wondered aloud, during the cabinet meeting, why Pakistan was not fighting in Afghanistan. There’s no delicate nuance to this: The entire reason why the Taliban exists, is because of Pakistani influence within the country.  It’s exactly what we do not want. He is simplistic and naïve in his understanding of regional world issues and history.

What have we accomplished in Afghanistan?  We're now negotiating with the Taliban. 

I think there's a class of citizens who just don't want to believe the world will survive without our blood and treasure continually spilling in all four corners of the Earth.  There are other ways to affect an outcome.

[kevindavis007]

You don't honestly think us losing in Afghanistan is stopping terrorists, do you?

So we should cut and run like paper tigers?

[Right_in_Virginia]

So we should cut and run like paper tigers?

Nah, let's do it your way and get another couple of thousand young Americans killed and maimed over the next 18 years and drain another trillion or two from our coffers.  That'll show 'em.  We keep dying even with no victory defined or in sight.   

[TomSea]

Maybe this is from the same cabinet meeting:

Israeli official ‘in shock’ as Trump says Iran ‘can do what they want’ in Syria
By TOI staff Today, 10:04 am 10 Edit

A senior Israeli official on Thursday reportedly criticized US President Donald Trump for appearing to give Iran free rein to further entrench militarily in Syria.

The US president, on Wednesday, said of Iranian forces in Syria: “They can do what they want there, frankly,” while suggesting Tehran was removing its troops from the country.

“It is sad that he is not attentive to intelligence materials,” the unnamed Israeli source said, according to a Thursday report by the Ynet news website.

Read more at: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-official-in-shock-as-trump-says-iran-can-do-what-they-want-in-syria/

It doesn't go over well, potentially, could hurt him with some voters as it seems to indicate a lack of knowledge and a careless statement. I can see how one could say, this was anti-intervention talk but he campaigned on limiting Iran, that's why we are helping the Saudis in Yemen.

[edpc]

Nah, let's do it your way and get another couple of thousand young Americans killed and maimed over the next 18 years and drain another trillion or two from our coffers.  That'll show 'em.  We keep dying even with no victory defined or in sight.   

You’re right. We should do it your way, remain uninvolved, and leave things to the regional players. In a decade or two, we will just have a major conflict, become embroiled, and have casualties in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

[kevindavis007]

You’re right. We should do it your way, remain uninvolved, and leave things to the regional players. In a decade or two, we will just have a major conflict, become embroiled, and have casualties in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

That attitude worked so well in the 1930's..

[Right_in_Virginia]

Maybe this is from the same cabinet meeting:

It doesn't go over well, potentially, could hurt him with some voters as it seems to indicate a lack of knowledge and a careless statement. I can see how one could say, this was anti-intervention talk but he campaigned on limiting Iran, that's why we are helping the Saudis in Yemen.

Israel is deliberately ignoring the context of the President's statement .... where he says Iran is a much weakened nation since he's pulled out of the Iran deal.  He pointed specifically to the sanctions and an economy imploding and the massive daily protests against the regime.  After this the President said let them stay in Syria AND FIGHT ISIS ....

Maybe BiBi can convince Brazil to send some troops to fight Iran.  After all according to him Israel now has an alliance with a "superpower" 

Netanyahu in Brazil: Israel is forming an alliance with a superpower
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Benjamin-Netanyahu/Netanyahu-in-Brazil-Forming-an-alliance-with-a-superpower-575708