Why is Trump so effective???

by Coded Logic 74 Replies latest social current

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade

    Coded and I were having a good discussion, now that bohm is here I will leave and not waste my time as it took him no time to start jumping around with nonsense. Ciao

    Image result for never argue with stupid people

  • bohm
    bohm

    freemindfade:

    Can you explain who requested the sale and what the state department's role in the sale was?

    Hint: See table 5-1 of this document

    http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/DR/05%20Chapter.pdf

  • bohm
    bohm
    Coded and I were having a good discussion, now that bohm is here I will leave and not waste my time as it took him no time to start jumping around with nonsense

    The "my arguments are so awesome that I will just call you an idiot and run for the hills" response.

    Well, you certainly showed me.

    Just to summarize:

    The state department is bad because the state department APPROVED a transfer of arms&training from the US government to be delivered to the afghan government which is a democracy fighting the remains of the Taliban....which is a totally bad thing.

    Guess a better strategy would be to let the Afghans fail. I mean, it is halfway around the world so what bad could possibly come of that?

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade

    What is your point, it all has to be approved by the state department, also the FMS is also a function of the State Department.

    https://www.state.gov/t/pm/rsat/c14021.htm

    bye felicia


  • bohm
    bohm

    FMF: The sale of arms is a contract between the US government and the country that is receiving the sale.

    This program is conducted through formal contracts or agreements between the U.S. government (USG) and an authorized foreign purchaser. These agreements are called U.S. letters of offer and acceptance (LOA)

    It isn't the state department just selling arms to the afghans (nevermind I can't tell why that is such a bad thing considering the alternatives but I bet it is something Muslim-related).

    Since you brought this up as a reason to reduce the state department, your idea is that the US should not be able to sell arms to other countries if it sees the need for that, or that it is okay but the state department should not approve it, or what?

    It isn't even an argument; you just point out that the state department approved an arms sale, assume I know why this is such a bad thing (it would be better for the afghan government to fail?), and thereby, well, I should conclude that the problem is the state department and not the US government even if that would be an equally well-supported conclusion.

    I am happy that you have returned from your exile to enlighten me.