Afghanistan

[DadSmith]

Biden pressured Afghan president to LIE about Taliban's strength, call shows

JOE Biden pressured the former Afghan president to create a “perception” that the government could beat the Taliban, the shocking transcript of a call has revealed. In the last call bet…

www.the-sun.com

JOE Biden pressured the former Afghan president to create a "perception" that the government could beat the Taliban, the shocking transcript of a call has revealed.

 

[DadSmith]

Redirect Notice

This is unbelievable!

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Those stories are a couple days old. I think they were posted here actually. But yes, it’s sad this is where we are.

 

[BugI02]

I no people hated Trump and wouldn’t of voted for him but now that’s it’s done and they got what they wanted is it truly what they wanted or was it just take the bad with the good just to see Trump out ?

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled"

 

[yote hunter]

Why is there no protests in DC that we have 1000’s of Americans still in Afghanistan ?
People protest in DC all the time but not one protest for this ?

 

[buckwacker]

Why is there no protests in DC that we have 1000’s of Americans still in Afghanistan ?
People protest in DC all the time but not one protest for this ?

Because they would be arrested for insurrection.

 

[ditcherman]

Because they would be arrested for insurrection.

Let’s do it.

 

[buckwacker]

We've buddied up with those who've killed Americans as well, particularly in the run up to WW1 through the Cold War era. The Taliban didn't Pearl Harbor us. We declared war on them after negotiations over handing over Al-Queda failed. When you go to war, the other side will kill some of your side and you will kill some of their side. That's not remotely the same as saying they are good guys or should be our allies (and that's not what was under discussion that brought this up, the notion of NGO action for things like food relief was), but I don't see it as out of our national character in the slightest. It's against our marketing, maybe. It depends on if you believe America First or if you believe Spread Democracy. I only believe in the first one now.

I respect your experience and knowledge, but are you saying that this is just like every other instance of our government aligning with enemies for some "greater purpose"? This particular one just seems like a step too far. It's not like we won a war and are helping to rebuild the country following a full surrender. Our enemy outlasted us, essentially won the war, and now we're propping them up. That doesn't sit well with me. We should have just blitzed the place and left in 2001-2002; in and out in 6 months tops, no rebuilding. We don't seem to be at all competent at this geopolitical chess game any more. Maybe we never were.

 

[Mongo59]

Yes, but they had all been 'demilitarized' as claimed by the powers that be.

Just what does that mean? Disabling the MP3 player?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I respect your experience and knowledge, but are you saying that this is just like every other instance of our government aligning with enemies for some "greater purpose"? This particular one just seems like a step too far. It's not like we won a war and are helping to rebuild the country following a full surrender. Our enemy outlasted us, essentially won the war, and now we're propping them up. That doesn't sit well with me. We should have just blitzed the place and left in 2001-2002; in and out in 6 months tops, no rebuilding. We don't seem to be at all competent at this geopolitical chess game any more. Maybe we never were.

Every instance is different, as the reasons and the world context are different. Today's world is not the Spanish-American War world, and Afghanistan isn't the Phillipines...but leaving options open as to who is friend, foe, and lever is the part that's the same.

"Propping up" seems to be vastly overstating what was actually said and the article is obviously trying to make statements as controversial as possible. The question was "will we ever..." and the answer is "well, maybe."

"As you know, George, when we send humanitarian assistance to countries, we do so through … international institutions like the World Health Organization or the World Food Program, and we do so through a nongovernmental organization who, George, are still operating on the ground in Afghanistan as we speak. It will not flow through the government." However he clearly laid out that depending on the Taliban's "actions" and 'good behavior' - aid may eventually go to them. "It's going to be up to them," he said.

Yes, we suck at nation building. Probably because we are still playing by Cold War rules and because we have a cultural blind spot that says everyone wants to be like us. We also have this creation myth about our own country that we popped up "then" as we are "now" but more betterer. Intellectually most of us know that women didn't get the right to vote until 1920, but "no taxation without representation" ignores that, for example. We weren't us at the beginning, we became us over multiple generations, yet somehow think we can pivot a culture that's got completely different roots into today us...without the patience to do it for the generations it would take.

 

[yote hunter]

Now that taliban has taken over I believe we will see China on their side.

So much to gain from them.

 

[cobber]

Now that taliban has taken over I believe we will see China on their side.

So much to gain from them.

China will studiously avoid anything smacking of nation building, although they'll have their fingers in the machinery of governance, encouraging internal dissension if it benefits Beijing.
Whether they are more subtle than the Soviets in the long run remains to be seen.

Hopefully we don't find ourselves backing the next cohort of mujahedin, only to have that blow up in our faces all over again.

 

[printcraft]

What is with this assbag bidet always pronouncing "taliban" as "tollybon"?
Who is directing him to do that?
Same with obama speeches about "pakistan" as "pocky-ston".
It grates every time I hear it.

 

[Leadeye]

I figure with all the different groups over there, china will play them off against each other while looting the country. In the future they will still be fighting over goats and rocks but will have nothing left that the world will find useful. Much as I see the future of Africa.

 

[buckwacker]

Every instance is different, as the reasons and the world context are different. Today's world is not the Spanish-American War world, and Afghanistan isn't the Phillipines...but leaving options open as to who is friend, foe, and lever is the part that's the same.

"Propping up" seems to be vastly overstating what was actually said and the article is obviously trying to make statements as controversial as possible. The question was "will we ever..." and the answer is "well, maybe."



Yes, we suck at nation building. Probably because we are still playing by Cold War rules and because we have a cultural blind spot that says everyone wants to be like us. We also have this creation myth about our own country that we popped up "then" as we are "now" but more betterer. Intellectually most of us know that women didn't get the right to vote until 1920, but "no taxation without representation" ignores that, for example. We weren't us at the beginning, we became us over multiple generations, yet somehow think we can pivot a culture that's got completely different roots into today us...without the patience to do it for the generations it would take.

The reason I say propping up is that I can't believe that the confluence of events are coincidental or simply the result of incompetence. There are just too many coincidinks. To me it appears like we wanted the Taliban in control. The last article I linked was just another piece of evidence. Whether we think so or not, any aid to Afghanistan will benefit the Taliban.

With regard to the nation building concept in Afghanistan, I was talking to my dad about this just the other day. We might be able to make it work in that country, but it's a 100 year proposition. There is a snowballs chance in hell that would be possible with the political climate in the US now, let alone what it will be over the next 80 years, should we last that long.

 

[edwea]

What is with this assbag bidet always pronouncing "taliban" as "tollybon"?
Who is directing him to do that?
Same with obama speeches about "pakistan" as "pocky-ston".
It grates every time I hear it.

I feel the same way every time I hear someone suddenly develop an accent when they say "Latino".

 

[Mikey1911]

What is with this assbag bidet always pronouncing "taliban" as "tollybon"?
Who is directing him to do that?
Same with obama speeches about "pakistan" as "pocky-ston".
It grates every time I hear it.

Anybody old enough to remember how Saint JFK used to pronounce “Cuber”??

 

[ditcherman]

The reason I say propping up is that I can't believe that the confluence of events are coincidental or simply the result of incompetence. There are just too many coincidinks. To me it appears like we wanted the Taliban in control. The last article I linked was just another piece of evidence. Whether we think so or not, any aid to Afghanistan will benefit the Taliban.

With regard to the nation building concept in Afghanistan, I was talking to my dad about this just the other day. We might be able to make it work in that country, but it's a 100 year proposition. There is a snowballs chance in hell that would be possible with the political climate in the US now, let alone what it will be over the next 80 years, should we last that long.

A great talk about how it’s not a coincidence, go check out wagyu52 latest post in the patriots at the capital thread.

edit; pay no attention to the text in the link, irrelevant.

Live Feed, Patriots at the Capitol

You're a much better troll than he or i This sounds vaguely like an admission to trolling. I'm pretty sure you know what the Kut reference meant.

www.indianagunowners.com

“You can’t screw up a country this bad in 7 months without doing it on purpose”.
Worth the listen.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

To me it appears like we wanted the Taliban in control. ... We might be able to make it work in that country, but it's a 100 year proposition.

See the disconnect there in your own thoughts?

It's not that America or the American gov't wanted the Taliban in charge. It's that we weren't willing to do what would need to be done for the Taliban to not eventually be in charge. Trump knew it and is why he negotiated with the Taliban. Biden's screw up wasn't leaving, it was how he left. We weren't going to fight Pakistan. We weren't going to stay for generations. It was not worth it to us. Afghanistan and the Taliban is not a threat to our sovereignty. They are not a peer nation capable of inflicting debilitating damage. They are not a threat to our way of life, aside from any self-inflicted wounds from reacting to terrorism. How much time/treasure/talent do we continue to invest to prop up not-Taliban?

 

[AtTheMurph]

This isnt good. We knew who the bomber was, where he was going to strike, and even had a drone lock on him, but the brass refused to authorize the shot. Now 13 soldiers are dead because of that inaction. like that is why we didnt win this war.

Bombshell Report Claims US Knew About Kabul Bomber, Had Drone Lock, but Didn't Take the Shot

redstate.com

Does any of that surprise you?

All of these "mistakes" are really part of the plan. The military bureaucrats thrive off of war.

And the best way to curry favor with the public and get them to ask you to bomb other people is to be able to show them some dead bodies.

Same thing happens with the mass murders here in the US. The murderers are well all known to law enforcement and they know they are likely to go off the reservation and kill lots of people, but they sit back and tell us that it is the guns that are the problem.