Comments by "SkyRiver" (@SkyRiver1) on "Ret. Col. Ann Wright on Reopening U.S. Embassy in Kabul in 2001 & Why She Supports Troop Withdrawal" video.

The person responsible for this was George Bush -- directly responsible. He ignored the facts, ignored the reality on the ground and decided to make his buddies in the defense industry and gov. contractors rich. Also note that George Bush has been supported monetarily his entire adult life by Saudi proxies
10
The person responsible for this was George Bush -- directly responsible. He ignored the facts, ignored the reality on the ground and decided to make his buddies in the defense industry and gov. contractors rich. Also note that George Bush has been supported monetarily his entire adult life by Saudi proxies
6
Seldom have I seen so many totally false statements in two incorrectly punctuated sentences. And of course a few nitwits agreed with you. I bet you think Trump won the election and Q is really a thing, not something a few stoners made up in their mom's basement. Does the OBVIOUS need to be stated here? You don't have a Q what the actual facts are.
3
@MrTaxiRob You got it, and there wasn't a democrat in the house with enough balls to stand up to the gang of frat boys who forcibly stopped the ballot counting in Florida. Why is Florida so nuts? Could it be because masses of Cubans who used to profit from the sin economy in Cuba when the country was owned by American organized crime, fled to Florida and became staunch Republicans? I think that explains a lot.
2
@broadbeanification My friend, nobody knows the ins and outs of monetizing military defeat like the Afganis. They have been doing it for centuries.
1
@paul9156c I hear you. IMO you can't take the defeats of US foreign policy as military defeats. You know, it's just not in fashion to defeat a country militarily, kill all the men and boys, take the women as slaves, and move your veterans onto the conquered territory to establish settlements. So how else do you fleece someone if you can't fleece your enemies because of world opinion and it's repercussions? You fleece the taxpayers. Your own tax base becomes the enemy. You set up vast nation building programs then when they fail, you make sure that your enemy captures your military equipment that you supplied the puppet forces with. Then your military industrial complex is happy and gives out huge bonus checks in the form of campaign contributions to the scumbags who should be representing the people. But the USA hasn't really prosecuted a real total war against anyone since WW2. I assure you, as meaningless as it has become in today's world, there is not a country on earth that the USA could not totally destroy in short order, if they decided to commit to total war. Even in total war without nukes, if the idea was just to win, and destroy everything -- you like myself may consider it an ill-placed priority -- but nobody comes close. Not even close. It's like comparing a Tesla model s plaid to a Chevy Bolt.
1
Tulsi
1
I would suggest: "Wake the fu@k up you ignorant ludite." On second thought: it doesn't really matter at all, the politicians have to play to a crowd that was brainwashed with preposterous ideas in childhood, just like the majority of Muslims, or really any religious beliefs founded in fictions mistaken for facts. There is almost no hope of them seeing what is really going on. Think about it: despite the fact that no miracles have ever been verified and that everything in their lives indicates that these are just teaching stories, they still believe nonsense. Believing is a lot easier than finding the truth in the haystack of social media opinions. DN is a prime example, as loads of people around here believe in any anti-American narrative that is presented, no matter how they are easily disproved by anyone with the ability to discriminate between what constitutes verifiable facts and just another spun narrative. Of course DN also seems to be a magnet for foreign active measure in the guise of comments.
1
@reforest4fertility Why do you think that?
1
@reforest4fertility I think you are confusing the Mujahideen with the Taliban. The Mujahideen began in an uprising in 1979 by Afghans against the USSR and the puppet communist government in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen fought a long costly war against the Red Army, which suffered many losses and started withdrawing from the country in 1988, after which the war against the existing regime continued. The loosely aligned Mujahideen took Kabul in 1992 following the collapse of the Moscow-backed government. However their new government was quickly fractured by rival factions, becoming dysfunctional, which escalated into another civil war from which the Taliban formed. So the Taliban did not even exist in the 80's. Though it may be true that some of the Mujahideen later became Taliban. The Mujahideen were supported a bit by the USA, and other nations and even private donors. The Taliban was not supported by the USA. The USSR and their puppet communist government in Afghanistan was firmly entrenched before the Mujahideen let alone the Taliban even came into existence, so no the USA did not use the Taliban to draw Russia into a war in Afghanistan. The civil war against the communist government and the occupation by the USSR was by the Mujahideen who were mostly native Afghans trained in Pakistan, but also included Islamic fighters from other countries that joined voluntarily. The USA eventually supported the Mujahideen with some shoulder launched ground to air missiles. But the uprising against the government and the USSR occupation was well underway before the USA finally sent any support.
1