War

[mojave green]

[No message]

 

[mojave green]

[No message]

 

[mojave green]

[No message]

 

[Three Berries]

He would have had little if any problem leaving behind all the thousands of Afghans that help US forces, essentially committing them to a death sentence at the hands of the Taliban for being traitors. If he would have done different he would have made sure the state department was fully staffed back when he was still in office so that they would have had the necessary man power to process all the thousands of requests for refugee status in the states. The fact that he left the state department so gutted was one of the big reasons why Biden had to delay things beyond the promised May 1st date and why even after 3 additional months there were still many Afghans that had to be left behind. As a result of not being able to take care of everyone that helped us out, the next time we find ourselves in a foreign land we'll have a much harder time finding people willing to help us. Another thing that proves Trump would have left those who helped us behind was the way he suddenly withdrew troops from the Turkish border of Syria leaving the Kurdish forces who were key in helping us to defeat the ISIS forces in Syria. Thereby leaving those Kurdish forces to be brutally attacked by the Turkish who had a long standing issue with the Kurds. The only thing holding the Turks back was our presence there and because we are allies with them thru NATO. Not long afterwards he did send troops back but not to help the Kurds but rather to take the Syrian Oil for ourselves.

What are we going to do with all the traitors in the US? All US wars are wars of choice to enrich those connected and pay for the welfare/warfare state. Well the inflation it creates pays for it anyway.

Who pays for inflation? Lived thought he Carter inflation. If you need it you better buy it now!

 

[Three Berries]

Most of what you say hasn't been revealed because it's just made up nonsense. The numbers I mentioned however are based on polls, which I will admit isn't much better then made up nonsense because polls can easily be manipulated to get whatever results you want but at least with polls there are actual people were polled and records of that polling that can be pointed to so it is better then just someone merely stating their own biased, personal opinion.

Putting any faith in polls is like using CNN as a fact checker.

There is as much propaganda from the RINO right media as there is from the Left. What you don't here in the news is the real story of what is going on. Both sides of the UD political spectrum are involved in the Ukraine corruption.

Some of my news letters have really outed themselves over this.

 

[Volcanna]

Putting any faith in polls is like using CNN as a fact checker.

There is as much propaganda from the RINO right media as there is from the Left. What you don't here in the news is the real story of what is going on. Both sides of the UD political spectrum are involved in the Ukraine corruption.

Some of my news letters have really outed themselves over this.

Ben garrison is fire.

 

[Volcanna]

 

[Hermanthegerman]

I don´t know if it´s true, but when Russia lost 11 000 soldiers in 11 or 12 days, in 10 years of Afghanistan war they lost 14 000. That maybe is showing what´s going on?

Forward Ukraine!

 

[ButterflyEffect]

Yeah people like him and entropical amaze me, they'll skip over 100's of sites all saying essentially the same thing and call them fake news until they find a site, often run by a few individuals with no journalistic credentials that posts a story more in tune with the delusion they want to believe and they'll call that one questionable site a bastion of truth and integrity.

<Cough>Confirmation Bias<Cough>

 

[Three Berries]

All wars are Banker Wars.

 

[audiohi]

Just confirmed Russian loss of Vasily Bykov

1 of 3 project 22160 - Pride of their navy

It was involved in the attack on Snake Island. Didn't last much longer. lol

That's gotta hurt. Costly, too.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Can somebody please explain this?

https://files.catbox.moe/ao3f11.mp4

 

[flylowgethigh]

They are expecting the capital to be stormed soon. Tanks are coming through the outer towns. Of course, there are a limited number of roads a tank can use. Lets hope they have planted explosive appropriately, to drop buildings and open sewers. Planting explosive ahead of the fact has been seen in US warfare, though denied to date, we have the footage.

Destroy their own country to save the little stripper and his NWO buddies?

 

[flylowgethigh]

All wars are Banker Wars.

What they should do is make the west pay for the oil with real gold, not paper of credit. Middle east also.

 

[flylowgethigh]

About your first paragraph:

I do not see that the text uses the hypocrisy of some to ask not to help Ukraine. Rather the other way around: it is an argument for helping the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic in the same way, in the face of the Moroccan invasion.
Remember that this people already knew what "international abandonment" is, both in the Spanish Civil War and after the Moroccan invasion from the very moment they became independent from Spain.
And I must emphasize the importance of this opposition to Putin's invasion of the Sahrawis, because they know that just by being the worst problem of the biggest US ally in the region, Russia could help them (as the USSR already did), and as the Moroccan regime and Putin have had many contacts lately.



About your second:
​
I think you ignore that Israel and Morocco were already allies long before Trump arrived. Israel was the main technical help (along with and to a lesser extent, I believe, Apartheid South Africa and the USA ) to build the Moroccan Wall or Sahara Wall: the largest military dividing wall in the world, nearly 3,000 kilometers long.And it was the U.S. that mainly armed that wall militarily. Saudí Arabian puts de money.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro...rn_Sahara_Wall





And as for the almost unconditional US support for Morocco before Trump (although this one will already raise it to total), you can see it in these excerpts copied from simple generic electronic internet encyclopedias:

Precedent:
While President Donald Trump had yet to publicly announce his position on the conflict over Western Sahara, like his predecessor, President Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton set a precedent that President George W. Bush followed. Both Presidents Clinton and Bush sided with Morocco and maintained the position that "genuine autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty [is] the only viable solution."[39] Furthermore, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released in December 2008, the official position of the U.S. government is to support Morocco in the dispute over Western Sahara. The report stated, "The United States supports the UN effort and has urged the parties to focus on autonomy, a solution that would not destabilize its ally, Morocco."[40] Militarily, the United States has been Morocco's primary source of armaments in the conflict over Western Sahara. The United States provided major support for the Royal Moroccan Air Force, which was critical when the Polisario Front began using Soviet-built weapons such as the Soviet-built SA-6 surface to air missiles to counter the growing effectiveness of Morocco's Royal Moroccan Air Force.[35] Thus, the United States has a history of supporting Morocco in its conflict over Western Sahara.


1975-2006 :
In the 1970s, the United States made an effort to modernize Morocco's military to help with its conflict over Western Sahara. The United States focused particularly on Morocco's Royal Moroccan Air Force. U.S. assistance was especially important when the Polisario deployed Soviet-made SA-6 surface-to-air missiles to counter the growing effectiveness of Morocco's Royal Moroccan Air Force.[35] However, the Carter Administration tied military support and arms sales to Morocco with preconditions, stating that the U.S. would only exchange military supplies with Morocco for the purpose of modernizing Morocco's military, but not to assist with the conflict over Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Reagan Administration removed all conditions for supporting the Moroccans, as the need to establish bases in North Africa for the Joint Task Force Rapid Deployment made access to Moroccan airfields strategically important.[35] Beginning with the George H. W. Bush Administration, the focus of U.S. security assistance efforts in Morocco centered on maintaining and sustaining U.S. source equipment in the Moroccan Armed Forces.[35] In the 1980s and early 1980s, the U.S. military was the only U.S. military force in Morocco that was able to provide military supplies to the Moroccan Armed Forces, and the U.S. was able to provide them to Morocco.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Morocco obtained about $1 billion annually from Saudi Arabia to purchase arms and supplies from the United States to fight POLISARIO and defend its claim to Western Sahara. [41] In November 1986, the U.S. military conducted joint exercises with Morocco off the coast of Western Sahara. In September 1987, the U.S. government sold Morocco 100 M-48A5 tanks, used for desert terrain.[42] In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the U.S. remained relatively silent on the issue, although it provided tacit support to Morocco.[43] The U.S. government also sold Morocco 100 M-48A5 tanks, used for desert terrain.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the United States remained relatively silent on the issue, although it provided tacit support to Morocco.


2007-2008 :
In 2007, Morocco offered the POLISARIO a proposal for autonomy as an immediate and permanent solution between the two parties. Some authors claim that it is the first non-maximalist approach that both sides have offered,[44] while others describe it as an old attempt (copied from a 2003 proposal) with no credibility.[45][46] Theoretically, in Morocco's autonomy plan, the only issues that the Moroccan government would control for Western Sahara would be international relations and foreign and domestic security. Western Sahara would control all other matters, including: government administration, taxation, education, budgets, policing, and election of officials (although past movements of Moroccans to Western Sahara would not be reversed).[47] The Moroccan government would control all other matters.

While the two current and previous U.S. presidential administrations have not been deeply involved in the dispute over Western Sahara, the idea of resolving the conflict in Morocco's favor has many supporters in U.S. political circles, Including strong support from the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2007, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, 173 members of Congress from all major U.S. political parties and 15 influential figures involved in national security and foreign policy signed a letter to President George W. Bush encouraging the president to get involved and help end the fighting. The letter cited international stability, the war on terrorism, economic integration and a long-standing alliance with Morocco as some of the reasons to support Morocco and bring closure to the conflict over Western Sahara. The letter stated, "Morocco's commitment deserves the support of the international community..."[48] The letter stated.

Similarly, in an official statement to a Congressional hearing held in June 2007, the Kingdom of Morocco stated: "We recognize that fundamental compromises must be made to resolve this problem and free our region to move forward together. Morocco's recent initiative in the United Nations Security Council, supported by the letter signed by 173 members of Congress, is intended to demonstrate our willingness to make such compromises in the interest of all the peoples of the Maghreb and in particular of the Sahara. In that same spirit, we appreciate the attention of your Committee in helping us to move this issue toward a successful resolution."[50]

Speaking at the same 2007 hearing, former US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch stated that the State Department supported Morocco on the Western Sahara issue. He explained that the conflict is a "... destabilizing element [that] frustrates regional ties, which are necessary for economic expansion, and has had an effect on government-to-government cooperation within the Maghreb."[51] He then affirmed the State Department's role by stating, "We have welcomed, Mr. Chairman, Morocco's recent initiative to resolve the dispute.... We consider Morocco's proposal to provide real autonomy for Western Sahara to be serious and credible."[51] Conversely, with respect to the Polisario Front's proposal, Welch stated: "The POLISARIO proposal ... does not appear, in our view, to contain any new ideas ..."[52] In response to the 2007 letter addressed to the Polisario Front, Welch stated

In response to the 2007 letter to President Bush, the Congressional Research Service's 2008 report stated, "U.S. officials would prefer a more comprehensive and comprehensive approach to the Polisario Front. U.S. officials would prefer a solution to the Western Sahara dispute that would not destabilize the government of Mohammed VI. They also believe that a settlement would enhance regional stability and economic prosperity."[53] Despite all of this, the U.S. has not been able to find a solution to the Western Sahara dispute.

Despite all this, the United States has not yet formally recognized Morocco's legitimate authority over Western Sahara or Western Saharan sovereignty.[53] However, the 2008 CRS Report noted that in 2007 U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns endorsed Morocco's 2007 autonomy plan as "serious and credible."[53] As of 2008, Moroccan forces in the Western Sahara have not formally recognized Morocco's legitimate authority over Western Sahara or Western Saharan sovereignty.

As of 2008, Moroccan forces in Western Sahara number about 100,000 (mostly Moroccan Army), while the POLISARIO is only supported by about 3,000 to 6,000 troops.[54] As of 2008, Moroccan forces in Western Sahara number about 100,000 (mostly Moroccan Army), while the POLISARIO is only supported by about 3,000 to 6,000 troops.[54] As of 2008, Moroccan forces in Western Sahara total about 100,000 (the majority of the Moroccan Army), while the POLISARIO is only supported by some 3,000 to 6,000 soldiers.[54] The POLISARIO is also supported by some 3,000 to 6,000 troops.


2009 - 2020 :
In April 2009, 229 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, a clear majority and more than 50 others who signed the letter in 2007, called on President Barack Obama to support Morocco's peace plan and help bring closure to the conflict. The signatories included Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Republican Minority Leader John Boehner. In addition to noting that Western Sahara has become a recruiting ground for radical Islamists, the letter stated that the conflict is "the greatest obstacle to the security and cooperation needed to combat" terrorism in the Maghreb. [55] The letter referred to UN Security Council Resolution 1813 (2008), and encouraged President Obama to follow the policy set by President Clinton and then President Bush by stating that "genuine autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty [is] the only viable solution."[55] The congressmen expressed concern about the viability of Western Sahara. They referred to a UN fact-finding mission to Western Sahara that confirmed the State Department's view that the Polisario proposal, which ultimately represents independence, would lead to a non-viable state.[55] In conclusion, the letter stated, "We remain convinced that the U.S. position favoring autonomy for Western Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty is the only viable solution. We urge you to respect this longstanding policy and to make clear, in words and actions, that the United States will work to ensure that the United Nations process continues to support this framework as the only realistic compromise that can bring this unfortunate and protracted conflict to an end."[55]

Members of the U.S. Senate, noticing similar "disturbing trends" in the region, also drafted a letter of support for Morocco. In March 2010, a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for U.S. support for Morocco's autonomy plan. Similar to the House letter to President Obama, the 54 bipartisan senators (30 Democrats and 24 Republicans) who signed the letter expressed concerns about growing instability in the region, including a terrorist threat.[56] The letter openly urged Secretary Clinton and the Obama Administration to provide: ".... more sustained U.S. attention to one of the region's most pressing political problems, Western Sahara."[56] The letter further stated: "As you acknowledged in your remarks in Morocco last November, it has been U.S. policy to support a resolution of this conflict based on this formula since President Clinton's administration. We support this bipartisan U.S. policy and the efforts of the United Nations to bring all parties together to resolve this issue peacefully at the negotiating table."[56] Signatories included Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Kit Bond ranking member of the Intelligence Committee (R-MO). Regarding Morocco's autonomy plan, Senator Feinstein said, "In my view, Morocco has been a staunch ally of the United States, this is a big problem, and this is a reasonable way to solve it."[57]


2020 - present :
On October 2, 2020 during Defense Secretary Mark Esper's visit to Morocco on a tour of North Africa, Washington and Rabat signed an agreement for full cooperation in the military strategic field, the acquisition of arms and equipment, military training in all sectors, as well as intelligence between the two countries.[58]

On December 10, 2020, the administration of US President Donald Trump officially recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, in an exchange of favors for Morocco to establish formal diplomatic relations and recognize the State of Israel.[59] The diplomatic maneuver includes the military agreement seen above, plus an investment program destined for the Alawite kingdom,[60] as well as access to the purchase of US F-35 fifth-generation fighter jets, previously vetoed to the country.[61] The agreement also includes the signing of an agreement with the United States for the purchase of the F-35 fighter jets.

Don't forget the $12M bribe from Morocco to the clinton foundation, then they stiffed him.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clintons-morocco-117979/

 

[Montuno]

Well to be honest I'm not as up to date on the Western Sahara issue as you appear to be but I based my reply on what I read on this page:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/...western-sahara

Since aljazeera is not known for taking views/positions favorable to the US I figured it was a trust worthy source of information on the subject but they clearly see the matter very differently then how wikipedia sees it. I'll quote some of the lines that were the basis of my response:

"Former United States President Donald Trump shocked many observers when, in December of last year, his administration broke with years of international consensus to recognise Morocco’s claim to the disputed territory of Western Sahara."

"The move, which came in the context of a normalisation deal between Israel and Morocco, made Washington the first Western power to explicitly recognise Rabat’s claim to the vast region, bucking the United Nations’ official designation of Western Sahara as a “Non-Self-Governing Territory”."

"Now, months into Joe Biden’s tenure in the White House, the Democratic president has yet to take a position on the recognition, which analysts say further undermines the administration’s pledge to honour international norms in its foreign policy."

"“I think Biden’s getting a lot of pushback from the pro-Israel element not to reverse the decision,” Stephen Zunes, a professor at the University of San Francisco specialised in Middle East politics, told Al Jazeera."

"Morocco, which claims Western Sahara as part of its territory, and the Polisario Front, an armed group demanding independence for the region and its majority Sahrawi ethnic group, have been fighting over the disputed land since colonial power Spain withdrew in 1975.

The UN, which brokered a ceasefire in 1991, recognises neither the Morroccan nor the Polasario Front-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic’s sovereignty over the region."

"But Trump broke with that position on December 10, recognising “Moroccan sovereignty over the entire Western Sahara territory”. His administration also reaffirmed its support for a Moroccan proposal to grant limited autonomy to Sahrawis under overarching Moroccan control."

"The Biden administration has repeatedly said it is continuing a review of the policy.

In April, the Axios news site reported that Secretary of State Antony Blinken told his Moroccan counterpart that the US would not imminently reverse Trump’s recognition, while State Department spokesman Ned Price said last week that the US is “consulting privately with the parties about how best to hold the violence and achieve a lasting settlement”."

"Some reports have suggested the Biden administration’s delay is part of a larger strategy to work with Morocco to appoint a new UN envoy for the region to resume stalled peace talks.

But Zunes said not reversing the Trump administration’s move could harm the US’s credibility. “What credibility does the US have, for example, in opposing the Russian annexation of Crimea if they go and recognise [a] similar kind of illegal land grab?” he said. “It really hurts the US credibility in terms of international law.”"

"Meanwhile, Washington has denied the Moroccan prime minister’s recent claim that parts of the so-called African Lion joint military exercises – which are conducted annually by US Africa Command with African allies in Morocco – would take place in Western Sahara. But that has done little to reveal the administration’s position."

"Zunes added that elements within the Biden administration are concerned by the implications of delaying a change to Trump’s policy, particularly when it comes to relations with the African Union, which recognises the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a member state and whose charter prohibits countries from unilaterally changing colonial boundaries."

"Some in the US diplomatic community “are really hoping Biden will reverse this, because they do see the broader implications as not good for US influence, particularly in Africa”, he said."

There's more but I'll stop with that because my main objective was to demonstrate that it was the Trump administration that made the change of support and that the Biden administration is reviewing the matter with an eye towards reverting back to the UN position but that there maybe other geo-political influences at play here, and what I quoted does just that. Now I did read over what you posted from wikipedia and I'm wondering if there might be a little confusion of the terms here. Or rather confusion between the official position based on the UN's desire that both sides work out a mutual agreement. Officially that was the US position up until Donald Trump but unofficially all the previous administrations did seem to favor Morocco and the way I read it the Military aide was to correct the imbalance that existed from the Polisario Front being supported militarily by the Soviets. The US did seem to be more on the side of Morocco because Morocco had long established itself as a US ally and they felt that what Morocco was offering in the way of a peace proposal was more reasonable then what the Polisario Front was putting forth and they really just wanted the fighting to stop. Still in spite of that they left it up to the two sides to work it out which was in line with what the UN wanted. It was Trump who made it official though that the US would recognize Moroccan Sovereignty over the Western Sahara effectively ignoring what the Polisario Front wanted and he did this in exchange for Morocco to establish formal diplomatic relations and recognize the State of Israel. Which is echoed by your wikipedia post. They might have considered themselves allied with Israel because of their help with the wall you mentioned but clearly they did not recognize Israel or have diplomatic relations with them. Which clearly was something the Israelis wanted Trump to get them to do.

As for my first paragraph it wasn't directed at just you but you did say "Precisely, the weak side of these three countries is their coherence when it comes to respecting the compliance with that vaunted international legality to which they now resort in a false, hypocritical and shameless way." You seem to be saying as have others, that it's hypocritical for the US to say what Russia is doing in Ukraine is a violation of International law because in your opinion it's no different then the US supporting Morocco in the dispute over the Western Sahara. What I tried to do was recognize there is some hypocrisy when any country that has invaded other countries themselves cries foul when someone else does it. To me though that's a stupid argument because like I said that's like saying people that have committed a crime should then just forever ignore others committing crime just because they've done it in the past. With your case about Morocco and the Western Sahara you're trying to compare apples to oranges because the US has not invaded the Western Sahara like Russia has invaded Ukraine. If you feel providing support to Morocco is just as much a violation of international law as Russia invading Ukraine then you should be saying that it's just as much of a violation for Russia to be providing support to the Western Sahara. Yet frankly I don't see providing military support in the form of weapons to an ally as being a violation of international law as long as both sides doing so are not also sending in troops to fight the battles for their chosen allies. If Russia was just sending weapons into Ukraine for the Separatists to fight off the Ukrainian Government then I doubt anyone would be accusing them of violating international law. That's not what they're doing though. They're going in and fighting the battle for the separatists and they've gone well beyond the regions the separatists might have any claim to and they also have the stated objective of removing the Ukrainian elected government. When they're done they won't just leave and leave it up to the Ukrainians to elect a new government, They'll put in a puppet government loyal to Russia and they'll lay claim to all of Ukraine, just like they did with Georgia and Crimea.

Thank you very much for your answer: aljazeera is not at all favorable to the Saharawis, that's why I am even surprised by its relative impartiality in reporting the facts. But as you can see, important facts are missing, such as the construction of the biggest military wall in history with the curious collaboration of Israel, Apartheid South Africa, USA, France, Saudí Arabian...
Nor does he mention the criminal attacks on the civilian population by the Royal Marocco Army which have displaced the population to refugee camps in the Algerian desert.

The Polisario text I quoted you, I don't think it confuses apples with oranges becousr that the USA invaded the Western Sahara: it does say that the USA is the indispensable support for the illegal Moroccan invasion to be committed, maintained and expanded: that is, in a comparison with the Sahara War with that of Ukraine, it would be as if the USA were Belarus (although the difference would be that the USA is the main source of military resources of Morocco, while Belarus would be the "Morocco of Russia"; and that the USA offers trainers, advisors and military technicians to Morocco, but not combatant soldiers.

 

[Three Berries]

Just confirmed Russian loss of Vasily Bykov

1 of 3 project 22160 - Pride of their navy

It was involved in the attack on Snake Island. Didn't last much longer. lol

That's gotta hurt. Costly, too.

Nice pic no link?

 

[Three Berries]

What they should do is make the west pay for the oil with real gold, not paper of credit. Middle east also.

Q says we have the gold to kill the FED. This is the start!

 

[h.h.]

[video]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2622475/Video-Ukrainian-tank-rolls-Odessa-hours-Russia-invade.html[/video]

 

[audiohi]

Q says we have the gold to kill the FED. This is the start!

Nice story. No link?