So you failed to mention we upped the troops from the inadequate 2500 left under Trump and authorized up to 6000 for the evacuation. This is why he said there were insufficient troops at 2500. You either misunderstood or omitted it.


I used the article to support a point I made, you know - the process of arguing.
You merely use them as blunt instruments to hammer away at points you don't care to address...and to support bad/unsupported claims of your own, such as:

So you failed to mention we upped the troops from the inadequate 2500 left under Trump and authorized up to 6000 for the evacuation

Were the 2,500 that were there for the evacuation? I don't think so. You're forgetting the premise of the entire thread, that Biden fracked it all up.

You also sit back and take potshots at other posters, then get all stampy-foot when somebody offers you some pushback. LOL.

Did you notice that I didn't *insist* it's true? Oh, please. Sleight of hand isn't a skill you possess.

You also do cavalier mocking and derision

I practice Game Theory here: I mirror what I get.
If you folks want serious discussion, then you will get serious discussion. But in 99% of threads Team lib offers up snark, personal insults, sarcasm and loads of bad faith. Game Theory dictates that in such scenarios the proper response is to fire back until the other side stops.

There's only really 1 exception to that rule; one poster in particular will never get a serious reply owing to multiple decades of bullying and bad behavior. But everyone else? No problem.