Trump asks John Bolton to resign

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
71,024
47,889
USA
I am of the opinion that we should not have initiated full-scale invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. That is, neither should have happened. Yet having done so, if we had put up to 1 million troops in each respective country for an indefinite period, if we had committed with every fiber of our being to clawing those countries back to stability, and most of all if we had not made the unforgivable mistake of trying to fight two optional wars at once, things would've turned out fine.
Do you KNOW the history of Afghanistan and Iraq? Afghanistan was defined (by the Brits) as the territory beyond that crest line of hills they could not effectively control. They dominated the Indian subcontinent for nearly three hundred years, but they couldn't rule Afghanistan. The land is too harsh, the people too independent and hardy. And ruthless. Here's a line from a Kipling poem (and he served the Raj, so he should know):

The Young British Soldier said:
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
The Brits were really good at making places stable--stable enough to derive profit from and even move to--but Afghanistan is (literally) that place they couldn't be bothered to rule.

As for Iraq, it was created by the Brits out of three provinces of the old Ottoman Empire, provinces that the Ottoman Turks ruled for hundreds of years. But even the Ottomans discovered that when the natives were restless, the best thing to do was....withdraw. Just disappear. Give them no one to fight against for a while.

Do these sound like places that can "turn out just fine" if you just apply enough pressure? The payoff isn't worth the cost, and the cost is enormous.

Again, we're not talking about moral outrages, which are another matter. But this kind of longterm commitment is what won the West. We do not exactly have no experience doing it. We just didn't have the nerve, and with Afghanistan, the necons just got fucking bored and pulled troops out to prepare for another invasion.
What won the West was murdering all the natives, driving a brand new invention called the "locomotive" across it and getting millions of immigrants and poor native-born Americans to move there and become farmers. It was worth it because the untapped continent they "won" was full of arable land, precious and useful minerals, and ranges for cattle. Have you looked at the topography of either Afghanistan or Iraq?
 
Last edited:
Jul 2011
4,029
6,056
UK/Australia
Do you KNOW the history of Afghanistan and Iraq? Afghanistan was defined (by the Brits) as the territory beyond that crest line of hills they could not effectively control. They dominated the Indian subcontinent for nearly three hundred years, but they couldn't rule Afghanistan. The land is too harsh, the people too independent and hardy. And ruthless. Here's a line from a Kipling poem (and he served the Raj, so he should know):

The Brits were really good at making places stable--stable enough to derive profit from and even move to--but Afghanistan is (literally) that place they couldn't be bothered to rule.

As for Iraq, it was created by the Brits out of three provinces of the old Ottoman Empire, provinces that the Ottoman Turks ruled for hundreds of years. But even the Ottomans discovered that when the natives were restless, the best thing to do was....withdraw. Just disappear. Give them no one to fight against for a while.

Do these sound like places that can "turn out just fine" if you just apply enough pressure? The payoff isn't worth the cost, and the cost is enormous.

What won the West was murdering all the native, driving a brand new invention called the "locomotive" across it and getting millions of immigrants and poor native-born Americans to move there and become farmers. It was worth it because the untapped continent they "won" was full of arable land, precious and useful minerals, and ranges for cattle. Have you looked at the topography of either Afghanistan or Iraq?
Bravissimo! Why can't we always have well-informed, and informative posts such as the above, which are devoid of sniping at people seen as 'the other side'?
 
Dec 2018
4,147
2,447
the Heart of America
There are no sane Republicans. They are perfectly content to go over the edge with him and drag the rest of the country with them.
An excellent example of how political extremism is working in our nation and why both parties are failing to serve our nation's best interests. :)
 
Likes: Friday13
Dec 2018
4,147
2,447
the Heart of America
Quite amazing that there is someone in the world that can rub people the wrong way, even more than Trump can.

Someone that does something better than Trump?

As for Trump? Is there anyone that does not bother him?
Given a choice of keeping Bolton or Trump, I think most LWers on this forum would vote for keeping Bolton. :)

A lot of people do things better than Trump. Check out any Second Grade classroom; you'll find more maturity and character there than in today's Oval Office.

Ivanka. He'd never fire her.
 
Aug 2018
3,225
5,221
Vancouver
I've said this before but here it goes again: how can anyone with any self respect work for a incompetent lying unethical person like Donald Trump? I have no respect for anyone that works for him.
I know. I just can't get my head around it.

No matter what the benefit. At the end of the day I have to go out in public and look people in the eye. And myself in the mirror. And present myself to my kids as something more than a grovelling, sniveling patsy.

Who has ever worked for him and kept a shred if their dignity? Is there one? One single person in 40 years in the public eye?

Haley maybe? Got out just in time?
 
Jul 2011
63,983
13,017
Old NYC/DMS
Attacking Afghanistan was justified. Attacking Iraq was the work of an addle-brained idiot who wanted to show up his dad while being manipulated by the neocon extremists with which he had unwittingly surrounded himself.



Sort of. We shoukd have bombed the shit out of every taliban and al qaeda target and told them to fuck off.


None of this protracted war shit.
 
Likes: DairyHeiress
Nov 2013
25,508
21,770
None of your business
Looks like Trump got tired of Bolten doing his job....most probably over the Taliban deal. This is just more evidence Trump is the PABOTUS.


Why We Need John Bolton | National Review
It’s important that this president—any president—get unvarnished advice from his aides, and Bolton is always willing to provide it.
to be honest, I've never much been interested in a fight between cockroaches like Bolton and Trump, if they tear each other apart I could care less.
 
Apr 2012
60,280
45,421
Englewood,Ohio
I agree with you as far as civilians. But those with military backgrounds do have respect for the office of the president, so I get why they feel a request from their commander in chief is a duty.
I think it kinda depends.
But, anymore it's a total shit show so no one worth any credibility should feel comfortable working for this self-destructive time bomb.
Barr was a respected dude pre-Trump. Now he's a party joke. Well deserved comeuppance, to be sure. Many folks found their true reputations in the Trump vortex:
Guiliani, Sessions, Dirshowitz, Kelly....
Only Mattis and Haley left with any honor.

McMaster was another.

For those who remember how Barr covered for those involved in Iran/ Contra he was not respected. Maybe by the Republicans who were grateful he CTA.