Do you approve or disapprove of Joe Biden's performance on Afghanistan?

[U2Edge]

Uh, guy, let's get real. More American died in the Forever War(TM) than died in all terrorist attacks including 9/11. It's the problem of treating a law enforcement issue like a military one.

The Taliban was willing to turn over Bin Laden in 2001, or at least expel him. Bush and Cheney wanted their Forever War(TM) and they got it. The Contractors got fat and rich, we pissed away trillions of dollars and thousands of lives... and we have absolutely zero to show for it. If anything, we are WORSE off.



You know what, I'm old enough to remember the SAME SHIT being spewed by people when Saigon fell. It was shit then. It was shit now.



Yup. Just another 20 years... That's all we needed in the Forever War(TM). Just keep throwing money at the problem.

AGAIN, solving the terrorist problem and defending against Terrorism is not done by simply locking the cockpit door on an airplane.

You MIGHT be able to treat the problem more like a law enforcement issue IF, you don't have countries that are actively engaged in and supporting terrorist actions, and you don't have ungoverned spaces where the terrorist control the environment and operate without any interference.

The War in Iraq was not about terrorism, it was about SADDAM's continuing threat to the region, failure to comply with multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, and the failure of the containment regime set up around him.

Afghanistan was indeed about Terrorism, but it was also about a country ruled by the Taliban that had decided to actively support and fight for terrorist entities. 2,452 Americans have died in Afghanistan, but the number who died from hostile fight from various groups there is below 2,000. The rest died from accidents or health issues, not unusual for any deployment, even within the United States.

If the 9/11 attacks had occurred in the early Afternoon instead of the morning, 50,000 people could have died(instead of the 3,000 that did) on that day. Plus, there are hundreds of other types of mass casualty events that terrorist can attempt.


The U.S. abandonment of South Vietnam did have repercussions around the world. U.S. credibility was weakened which led to more challenges to the United States rules based order around the world, whether it was the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, the spread of Soviet supported communism in Central America or Africa, the Soviets achieving nuclear parity with the United States, and practicing Warsaw Pact invasions of Western Europe designed to defeat NATO and be in Paris in under three weeks, challenges from Muslim Terrorist whether they be Al Qaeda, Hezbellah in Lebanon, or even the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah, and then took U.S. personal at the embassy hostage for 400+ days, as well as SADDAM's invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990. All of these things stemmed from these entities being less afraid and deterred by the United States after it abandoned South Vietnam. SADDAM even laughed at the U.S. experience in Vietnam saying they America was exhausted by a war where 50,000 troops died, while he lost 50,000 troops in one battle against the Iranians. SADDAM thought of the United States as a paper tiger(thanks to the U.S. abandonment of South Vietnam), which is why he thought he could invade and annex Kuwait and get away with it.


Finally, lets be real about what the cost was to the United States and NATO of continuing the deployment in Afghanistan over the next 20 years or any other time period. It was not the trumped up figures of 2 Trillion dollars or 2,500 deaths. NO, it was the experience of the last six years which cost about $50 Billion dollars and 66 deaths. That is about $150 Billion dollars and 200 deaths over the next 20 years. BUT YOU WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT FIT THE NARATIVE YOUR TRYING TO SPIN!

 

[kaz]

As Reagan said, never negotiate with terrorists. I guess Biden never listened to Reagan.

Biden seriously thought that the Taliban would let us leave peacefully because he's President. Democrats think that tyrants, despots and murderers around the world like them. But they don't, they just like having Democrats in office because they are weak and do shit like Joe's withdrawal from Afghanistan fiasco

 

[JoeB131]

Ok, Neville Chamberlain! Appeasement, isolationism, and pacifism are not effective means to protect U.S. national security. The United States learned that the hard way with World War I, and World War II. The United States changed its defensive posture after World War II, which is one of the reasons there has not been a World War III and has effectively protected the globalized world system since that time that was essentially created by Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.

Ah... okay. The old "Neville Chamberlain" canard. Of course, Chamberlain was perfectly in the right at Munich. If the Slovaks, Germans, Hungarians and Ukrainians didn't want to fight for Czechoslovakia, why should the British have? if Chamberlain fucked up, it was in giving the Polish Colonels a blank check instead of making reasonable territorial concessions. That drove Hitler right into Stalin's arms, and the war started.

The US never should have been involved in WWI. As for WWII, you might have an argument, but in that case, the Germans and Japanese actually posed an existential threat. Terrorism does not. For us to be involved in a Forever War(TM) because a few terrorists might blow people up, so let's make it easier for them by moving the targets closer, is just dumb.

There is no "forever war". That is like saying the United States responsibility to protect its interest, its citizens, its survival, in a globalized 21st century world is somehow a forever war. ITS THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE! Everyone has it. Sadly there are people out there who think its better achieved by pulling down your pants and grabbing your ankles to service anyone who might cause you harm.

Except we aren't engaging in self-defense when we are invading other people's countries on largely false pretexts, are we? I'm not even talking about Afghanistan, but Iraq was just plain wrong.

After World War II, there were strict conditions placed on what type of military Japan could have and when and where they could use that military around the world. Those restrictions though have gradually been reduced over the past decades. Japanese troops actually deployed for a time in the 00s to Iraq to support the United States rebuilding efforts there. Plus, it was JAPAN, along with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Germany, that paid for the cost of the entire 1991 GULF WAR, that was said to anger Bin Ladin so much that he decided to start attacking the Western Nations.

Yet he didn't attack Japan, did he?

As for terrorism, the record shows there has not been a 9/11 scale attack on the United States since September 11, 2001. There has also been no similar attack on U.S. surface warship like the U.S.S. Cole in the year 2000, or an American Embassy with the scale of damage done to U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania during the 1998 Bombings by Al Qaeda. A forward presence helps to collect intelligence, and role up terrorist or insurgent networks. You simply don't have the same ability to combat terrorism coming from Afghanistan with an Aircraft Carrier in the Indian Ocean or from Air Base in the Persian Gulf. Having people on the ground in Afghanistan to collect intelligence as well as friendly government in Kabul with a friendly military and police force to work with IS FAR MORE EFFECTIVE AT STOPPING TERRORISM THAN these so called Over The Horizon capabilities that JOE BIDEN wanted to rely on, which is simply a return to the 1990s, which no knowledgeable person in hindsight think was effective.

Today they blew up 12 marines, which is just as deadly as any of those other attacks. The Forever War(TM) doesn't make us safer, it just gives them more targets to hit.

To wit. In Afghanistan, not counting today, we lost 2420 service members and 3937 contractors. In Iraq, we lost 4500 service members and 1500 contractors. Seems to me that the Forever War isn't making us safer.

We've had embassy attacks since 9/11 and the The Forever War(TM) started. 26 of them in fact.

Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no such thing as energy independence or more likely globalization independence. Its not 1812, its 2021. The days you could pretend the world outside your borders didn't exist ended well over a century ago.

Well, I'm sure the oil companies want you to believe that...

In addition, petroleum, which is being used at a 50% higher rate than it was 30 years, is used to make all kinds of products of which energy is just ONE! Even a country like Brazil which uses Sugar Cain based ethanol to power their cars, is still heavily impacted by the market for Petroleum.

Again, sounds like a good reason to put the money into research and development instead of The Forever War(TM)

Also the issues of Russian aggression, Chinese aggression, Iranian aggression, North Korean aggression, plus the global environment are even more reasons why the United States can't retreat from the world.

Okay, let's look at that.

Chinese Aggression? What Chinese Aggression? Oh, that's right, they are disputing some crappy little Island in something called the "South CHINA Sea". Not sure why CHINA would be interested in something called the South CHINA Sea.

Russia. Um. Okay, they are taking action within the former Soviet sphere and not much beyond that. Not our problem.

North Korea is a joke.

There is simply no data, that there many people in Afghanistan that support a return of the Taliban. Please, I challenge to name ONE AFGHAN women, ONE AFGHAN Girl that supports the return of the TALIBAN!

Here's the data.

Took them 11 days to take over the country.

The tragedy of the past four months happened because JOE BIDEN took away the AFGHAN military's ability to function by suddenly withdrawing all NATO forces. ANY OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PAST SIX YEARS SHOWS THAT! But you don't want to look at any of that to hold on to your simplistic beliefs based on what you have seen the past few weeks. Its grossly inaccurate and if you took time to examine the data, you would see that.

Uh, guy, I've been watching this debacle for the last 20 years. I've had friends who've served in it. The war boils down to "Our Child-abusing Drug dealers are better than your Child Abusing Drug Dealers". We've destroyed thousand of American lives in the The Forever War(TM) and it's really time to call an end to it.

 

[JoeB131]

AGAIN, solving the terrorist problem and defending against Terrorism is not done by simply locking the cockpit door on an airplane.

Sure it is.

1) Realize that Terrorism isn't a philosophy, it's a tactic. Just as likely to be practiced by domestic scoundrels as foreign ones.
2) Be more aware of your security, which we did after 9/11, and that did a lot more to reduce terror incidents than The Forever War(TM).

The problem with your position is it never ends. Frankly, we've been fighting Middle East Terrorism since the 1970's. The players change... Arafat, Saddam, Bin Laden, Khadafy are all off enjoying their 72 Virgins, but the fight goes on and on. Kind of time to realize that this isn't our fight, and take care of our own.

You MIGHT be able to treat the problem more like a law enforcement issue IF, you don't have countries that are actively engaged in and supporting terrorist actions, and you don't have ungoverned spaces where the terrorist control the environment and operate without any interference.

Again, we supported the Contras (who flooded our streets with crack cocaine), we supported the Muhajadin (who turned on us), we supported the assholes who overthrew Khadafy (who turned on us)... maybe before we bitch at other countries for "supporting terrorist actions", we should probably look at ourselves.

The War in Iraq was not about terrorism, it was about SADDAM's continuing threat to the region, failure to comply with multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, and the failure of the containment regime set up around him.

Um, no, it was because Bush and Cheney wanted revenge and oil. I mean, you can almost argue the merits of Afghanistan, at least the early part of it. Iraq was a complete and total clusterfuck.

Afghanistan was indeed about Terrorism, but it was also about a country ruled by the Taliban that had decided to actively support and fight for terrorist entities. 2,452 Americans have died in Afghanistan, but the number who died from hostile fight from various groups there is below 2,000. The rest died from accidents or health issues, not unusual for any deployment, even within the United States.

Sounds like a good reason to not deploy people there.

If the 9/11 attacks had occurred in the early Afternoon instead of the morning, 50,000 people could have died(instead of the 3,000 that did) on that day. Plus, there are hundreds of other types of mass casualty events that terrorist can attempt.

Yes, there are.... which is a good reason for more security here, and not a good reason to keep pissing people off by invading their countries.

The U.S. abandonment of South Vietnam did have repercussions around the world. U.S. credibility was weakened which led to more challenges to the United States rules based order around the world, whether it was the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, the spread of Soviet supported communism in Central America or Africa, the Soviets achieving nuclear parity with the United States, and practicing Warsaw Pact invasions of Western Europe designed to defeat NATO and be in Paris in under three weeks,

Actually, what hurt our credibility was us bullying a poor country for not wanting the form of government we thought they should have.

If Communism spreads anywhere, from Central America to your college campus, it's because capitalism is such a shit sandwich that it might seem like a good idea.

Now, all that said, Communism spread a lot faster between 1945- 1973, then it did from 1973 to 1989, when everyone realized it was kind of a bad idea. They picked up Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, ANgola....and that was about it. Most of those for reasons that had nothing to do with Vietnam.

challenges from Muslim Terrorist whether they be Al Qaeda, Hezbellah in Lebanon, or even the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah, and then took U.S. personal at the embassy hostage for 400+ days,

Uh, no, guy. The Iranian people overthrew the Shah because he was an evil cocksucker who murdered his own people after the US put him back into power by toppling a democratic government. It was not because they stopped fearing us.

as well as SADDAM's invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990. All of these things stemmed from these entities being less afraid and deterred by the United States after it abandoned South Vietnam.SADDAM even laughed at the U.S. experience in Vietnam saying they America was exhausted by a war where 50,000 troops died, while he lost 50,000 troops in one battle against the Iranians. SADDAM thought of the United States as a paper tiger(thanks to the U.S. abandonment of South Vietnam), which is why he thought he could invade and annex Kuwait and get away with it.

Well, that and April Glaspie told him it was okay.

And Reagan told him it was fine when he attacked Iran and Gassed the Kurds.

But people leave those parts out of the narrative.

Finally, lets be real about what the cost was to the United States and NATO of continuing the deployment in Afghanistan over the next 20 years or any other time period. It was not the trumped up figures of 2 Trillion dollars or 2,500 deaths. NO, it was the experience of the last six years which cost about $50 Billion dollars and 66 deaths. That is about $150 Billion dollars and 200 deaths over the next 20 years. BUT YOU WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT FIT THE NARATIVE YOUR TRYING TO SPIN!

Nope, I've been lied to by the last three presidents about this war for the last 20 years... The current one said he was going to get us out, we all told him to do that, and now we are getting cold feet becuase it "looks bad".

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The President was warned by other staff in the Defense/Diplomatic/intelligence community

The President listens to his closest advisors, members to his cabinet, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Pentagon.

When it came to Afghanistan, everybody has an opinion. You do, and so do I.

See my point?

 

[U2Edge]

The President listens to his closest advisors, members to his cabinet, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Pentagon.

When it came to Afghanistan, everybody has an opinion. You do, and so do I.

See my point?

It appears from reports that BIDEN had some deep seated opposition to further intervention in Afghanistan, although its notable it was not to the degree that he decided to resign from his position as Vice President under Obama. BIDEN followed his own instincts on this one as well as those in his party on the far left or those than whine about the bullshit of "endless war" and other such nonsense. His decision on April 14, 2021 to suddenly withdraw from Afghanistan regardless of conditions there or the impact it would have on terrorism, Afghan government, Afghan military, Afghan society, U.S. national security, was his alone. Clearly he ignored all the data from 2015 to 2020 showing that Afghanistan was a low cost operation providing the United States with enormous security benefits. BIDEN talks about overall cost in money and lives since 2001, but does not talk about the more relevant cost in lives and money from 2015 onward. Its a lie that by staying he would be committing another generation to "War in Afghanistan". The vast majority of the people who have enlisted in the military since 2014 have never been to Afghanistan. Why? Because for the past 6 years, the United States has only averaged about 10,000 total military personal in Afghanistan per year. Its a relatively small deployment in a military for 1.4 million active duty and 800,000 Reserve personal, with 100s of places they are deployed within the United States and abroad.

There is no excuse for Joe Biden on this. It was terrible decision, the worst foreign policy mistake any President has ever made. As Ambassador Ryan Crocker has said, " He owns it"!

 

[task0778]

I think it is amazing that there are 16 people on this board that approve of Biden's performance on Afghanistan. Can't imagine why.

 

[U2Edge]

Ah... okay. The old "Neville Chamberlain" canard. Of course, Chamberlain was perfectly in the right at Munich. If the Slovaks, Germans, Hungarians and Ukrainians didn't want to fight for Czechoslovakia, why should the British have? if Chamberlain fucked up, it was in giving the Polish Colonels a blank check instead of making reasonable territorial concessions. That drove Hitler right into Stalin's arms, and the war started.

The US never should have been involved in WWI. As for WWII, you might have an argument, but in that case, the Germans and Japanese actually posed an existential threat. Terrorism does not. For us to be involved in a Forever War(TM) because a few terrorists might blow people up, so let's make it easier for them by moving the targets closer, is just dumb.




Except we aren't engaging in self-defense when we are invading other people's countries on largely false pretexts, are we? I'm not even talking about Afghanistan, but Iraq was just plain wrong.



Yet he didn't attack Japan, did he?




Today they blew up 12 marines, which is just as deadly as any of those other attacks. The Forever War(TM) doesn't make us safer, it just gives them more targets to hit.

To wit. In Afghanistan, not counting today, we lost 2420 service members and 3937 contractors. In Iraq, we lost 4500 service members and 1500 contractors. Seems to me that the Forever War isn't making us safer.

We've had embassy attacks since 9/11 and the The Forever War(TM) started. 26 of them in fact.

Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, I'm sure the oil companies want you to believe that...



Again, sounds like a good reason to put the money into research and development instead of The Forever War(TM)




Okay, let's look at that.

Chinese Aggression? What Chinese Aggression? Oh, that's right, they are disputing some crappy little Island in something called the "South CHINA Sea". Not sure why CHINA would be interested in something called the South CHINA Sea.

Russia. Um. Okay, they are taking action within the former Soviet sphere and not much beyond that. Not our problem.

North Korea is a joke.


Here's the data.

Took them 11 days to take over the country.




Uh, guy, I've been watching this debacle for the last 20 years. I've had friends who've served in it. The war boils down to "Our Child-abusing Drug dealers are better than your Child Abusing Drug Dealers". We've destroyed thousand of American lives in the The Forever War(TM) and it's really time to call an end to it.

Nobody defends Neville Chamberlain. But in any event, the Allies and the United States should have taken action against Hitler as soon as he started violating Germany's treaty obligations in the mid-1930s.

As for World War I, had the United States been involved early on a European Defense Alliance with the United Kingdom, France, and Russia, along troops positioned in Europe, Germany never would have started the war. I single out Germany, because their military was the first violate the territory of another country in 1914.

Again, with both World War I and World War II, U.S. participation in matters of security in Europe early on could have prevented both wars. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman new this, which is one reason why the United States post-World War II became far more engaged with the rest of the world especially on security matters and finally started to maintain a strong military even in peace time. It prevented a Soviet take over of much of the planet, World War III, and the end of all life on the planet.

Terrorism threatens security, and when security is threatened, existence is threatened. Its as simple as that. In the past, countries that ignored the threat disappeared. And no, one particular terrorist attack does not determine whether the threat is existential or not.

Protecting American lives and way of live is vitally important. In Afghanistan, over the past 6 years, that was being accomplished at a relatively small cost. An average of about $10 Billion dollars a year for the United States and 10 deaths from hostile fire per year. No, not the $2 Trillion and 2,400 lives you blindly spew about. That was NOT the situation in Afghanistan since 2015. But it does not seem like your willing to pay attention to that important FACT!


It was Iraq that invaded and annexed Kuwait in August 1990, not the United States. Everything since that time through 2003 was the United States responding to SADDAM's aggression. His failure to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions, 17 of them, and his continued threat to Kuwait and the rest of the Persian Gulf, meant he had to be removed through a ground invasion, which finally took place in the Spring of 2003. But the War was started over a decade before that. The Ground invasion to remove Saddam from power was just the end of it. Every year since 1991, the United States and its coalition allies had been engaged in various types of combat with Saddam's regime. The problem was Saddam, he started it, and it was appropriate that he was finally removed. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. Qatar, Bahrain, and other countries in the region are all safer with Saddam gone.


No Bin Ladin did not attack Japan, but by his logic, he was justified in doing so given what Japan did, paying for the 1991 Gulf War and sending troops to Iraq after the 2003 removal of Saddam from power. The point here is you obviously thought of Japan as some innocent pacifist nation, not involved and so not on the target list. But that is simply false.

The 12 Marines died, not because of the war in Afghanistan, but because BIDEN decided to "END IT" and hastily withdrew all U.S. and NATO troops. Because of this stupid action, he had to send them back, back into unfavorable conditions, conditions created by JOE BIDEN's decision to get out of Afghanistan.

Of Course, according to BIDEN, Al Qauda is gone, yet the person in charge of Taliban security in Kabul, the guy who probably allowed the bombing to take place, Khalil Haqqani, is himself a member of Al Qaeda, mentored Bin Ladin too. Nothing like this happened to U.S. troops in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 in Afghanistan. The situation was far more secure in those years with the Taliban FAR from Kabul and in remote regions of Afghanistan or hiding across the border in Pakistan. The deaths of the 13 U.S. troops just go to show how stupid BIDEN's Afghanistan policy since April 2021 has been. Again, the troop deaths yesterday exceed any of the annual U.S. troop deaths for the years 2015 to 2020, with the exception of 2019. Just one day of Biden's rushed evacuation, not apart of the war at all, because BIDEN abandoned prosecution of the war back in April of 2021.

As far as U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, look no further back than 2015, because that was the current situation that BIDEN abandoned and it was not 2,400 dead, it was 66 over those six years. You can take data from 10 or 15 years ago and make it a description of the situation in recent times. That is deceptive or out right lying and if not that just ignorant.


As for Embassy attacks, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were completely destroyed. Were not talking about the harmless rocket than lands on embassy grounds some where without hurting anyone.

Most Americans understand China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are threats. China is threatening to invade and take Taiwan. Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Kuwait. North Korea now has 250 Kiloton nuclear weapons that can reach Washington D.C.. These are serious threats and only the foolish or ignorant would ignore them.

Wars don't end simply because one side decides to walk away. The other groups involved always have a say in that. History has shown for the past half century that what happens in Afghanistan does not stay in Afghanistan.

 

[U2Edge]

Sure it is.

1) Realize that Terrorism isn't a philosophy, it's a tactic. Just as likely to be practiced by domestic scoundrels as foreign ones.
2) Be more aware of your security, which we did after 9/11, and that did a lot more to reduce terror incidents than The Forever War(TM).

The problem with your position is it never ends. Frankly, we've been fighting Middle East Terrorism since the 1970's. The players change... Arafat, Saddam, Bin Laden, Khadafy are all off enjoying their 72 Virgins, but the fight goes on and on. Kind of time to realize that this isn't our fight, and take care of our own.



Again, we supported the Contras (who flooded our streets with crack cocaine), we supported the Muhajadin (who turned on us), we supported the assholes who overthrew Khadafy (who turned on us)... maybe before we bitch at other countries for "supporting terrorist actions", we should probably look at ourselves.




Um, no, it was because Bush and Cheney wanted revenge and oil. I mean, you can almost argue the merits of Afghanistan, at least the early part of it. Iraq was a complete and total clusterfuck.


Sounds like a good reason to not deploy people there.



Yes, there are.... which is a good reason for more security here, and not a good reason to keep pissing people off by invading their countries.



Actually, what hurt our credibility was us bullying a poor country for not wanting the form of government we thought they should have.

If Communism spreads anywhere, from Central America to your college campus, it's because capitalism is such a shit sandwich that it might seem like a good idea.

Now, all that said, Communism spread a lot faster between 1945- 1973, then it did from 1973 to 1989, when everyone realized it was kind of a bad idea. They picked up Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, ANgola....and that was about it. Most of those for reasons that had nothing to do with Vietnam.




Uh, no, guy. The Iranian people overthrew the Shah because he was an evil cocksucker who murdered his own people after the US put him back into power by toppling a democratic government. It was not because they stopped fearing us.


Well, that and April Glaspie told him it was okay.

And Reagan told him it was fine when he attacked Iran and Gassed the Kurds.

But people leave those parts out of the narrative.



Nope, I've been lied to by the last three presidents about this war for the last 20 years... The current one said he was going to get us out, we all told him to do that, and now we are getting cold feet becuase it "looks bad".

Fortress America will not work for security. The United States learned that over a century ago. Two World Wars taught the United States the hard way that national security begins overseas. When your engaged with the world, especially with international security issues, you have a better chance of deterring war, and stopping those that would terrible harm to the world and the United States. A forward presence overseas increases intelligence capabilities which are vital to stopping terrorist. The United States just lost much of its intelligence capability in Afghanistan through BIDEN's stupid withdrawal. The weaker your intelligence, the weaker your ability to stop terrorist attacks from happening in the first place.

No, protecting ones security NEVER ENDS. That is reality. It does not mean endless war or any other BULLSHIT made up liberal slogan of the past 10 years. It means doing what is necessary to protect the lives and way of life of people. Sometimes military force is needed to do that.


You can role around all you want to on the idea that we might have supported someone that later caused us harm in the future, but again, that was no more true, than JOSEPH STALIN and World War II. You have take care of events as you experience them and do what is right at the time. Your never going to be perfectly prepared for every eventuality and often you have to simply go with the best options despite possible risks. The United States has supported a lot of countries and groups around the world that continue to support the United States today.


Sorry, but if Bush wanted to get rich from oil, allowing Saddam to seize a good portion of it, would have been his best bet. When you prevent a tyrant like Saddam from controlling and squeezing the worlds oil supply, you keep the oil flowing which keeps the price down. Cheap oil is good for the global economy, not necessarily for the oil producer and those that might profit from the sale of oil. AS said before, SADDAM started the problem by invading Kuwait and then Annexing it. No one told Saddam to invade Kuwait. No one told SADDAM to then annex Kuwait. If the bullshit about mis-communication were even a thing, SADDAM could have walked his forces out of Kuwait a week later. Instead he ANNEXED the country, first time someone that to a globally recognized country since HITLER. SADDAM wanted Kuwait and believed the United States would not go to war for it, or if they did, he would be able inflict enough casualties on the United States that they would turn and run. As SADDAM said, the United States suffered great trauma from Vietnam where they lost 50,000 dead, while losing 50,000 dead was just one battle for his military. SADDAM thought the United States was a paper tiger after Vietnam, and it directly influenced his action to invade and annex Kuwait.


The United States was definitely in weaker position because it abandoned South Vietnam. It definitely hurt U.S. credibility, and led to more bold action by America's enemies around the world. You can play up any scenario saying otherwise, but it won't change the fact that America enemies feared the United States less after Vietnam which influenced their decision making when conducting aggressive actions that the United States in years past might of responded to.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody defends Neville Chamberlain. But in any event, the Allies and the United States should have taken action against Hitler as soon as he started violating Germany's treaty obligations in the mid-1930s.

Actually, sensible historians realize that Chamberlain made the right call. The UK wasn't ready for a war, Germany had Czechoslovakia surrounded on three sides and 60% of the population was against being ruled by Prague. They wanted to rejoin Germany or Hungary.

The Treaty of Versailles CAUSED Hitler because it was so punitive

As for World War I, had the United States been involved early on a European Defense Alliance with the United Kingdom, France, and Russia, along troops positioned in Europe, Germany never would have started the war. I single out Germany, because their military was the first violate the territory of another country in 1914.

Um. No. The Germans didn't fear America in 1914, we struggled to fight MEXICO. Also, the first crossing of a border was by Austria-Hungary AFTER a Serb TERRORIST murdered their Archduke. You know, Serbia committed an act of TERRORISM, which by your fucked up logic, means they were totally within their rights to fight a war against Serbia.

God, I love hoisting them on their own petards!!!!

Again, with both World War I and World War II, U.S. participation in matters of security in Europe early on could have prevented both wars. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman new this, which is one reason why the United States post-World War II became far more engaged with the rest of the world especially on security matters and finally started to maintain a strong military even in peace time. It prevented a Soviet take over of much of the planet, World War III, and the end of all life on the planet.

There's a major difference between an honest to god threat like the USSR, and pummeling third world countries into oblivion because they picked a form or government you don't like or won't let you exploit their resources.

I should also point out that while NATO did okay, SEATO and CENTO failed because those countries didn't see America's interests as their interests.

Terrorism threatens security, and when security is threatened, existence is threatened. Its as simple as that. In the past, countries that ignored the threat disappeared. And no, one particular terrorist attack does not determine whether the threat is existential or not.

Uh, no, guy.. By that logic, ANYTHING can be declared a threat to national security. Free Speech? Threatens security. Crime? Threatens security...

We did far more damage to ourselves out of fear of terrorism than the terrorists were able to inflict.

Protecting American lives and way of live is vitally important. In Afghanistan, over the past 6 years, that was being accomplished at a relatively small cost. An average of about $10 Billion dollars a year for the United States and 10 deaths from hostile fire per year. No, not the $2 Trillion and 2,400 lives you blindly spew about. That was NOT the situation in Afghanistan since 2015. But it does not seem like your willing to pay attention to that important FACT!

Realitively low cost to whom? Not the 10 guys who got killed every year, instead of the THOUSANDS who died before that.

The point is, if for the last five years, the Afghans were just waiting for us to leave so they could put the Taliban back into power, because those child molesting drug dealers were preferred to the child molesting drug dealers we were supporting.

It was Iraq that invaded and annexed Kuwait in August 1990, not the United States. Everything since that time through 2003 was the United States responding to SADDAM's aggression. His failure to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions, 17 of them, and his continued threat to Kuwait and the rest of the Persian Gulf, meant he had to be removed through a ground invasion, which finally took place in the Spring of 2003. But the War was started over a decade before that. The Ground invasion to remove Saddam from power was just the end of it. Every year since 1991, the United States and its coalition allies had been engaged in various types of combat with Saddam's regime. The problem was Saddam, he started it, and it was appropriate that he was finally removed. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. Qatar, Bahrain, and other countries in the region are all safer with Saddam gone.

Yeah, seriously, dude, I want some of whatever the fuck you are smoking, because it must be some good shit.

Removing Saddam has had the following effects.
1) It radicalized thousands more Muslim men. Even Rumsfeld admitted we were creating more terrorists than we were killing.
2) It took out the one power that was hemming in Iranian Ambitions... now they are causing trouble in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.
3) It led the rise of ISIS after Sunnis realized they could no longer have a say in running Iraq and sharing in it's oil wealth.

But the contractors made a shitload of money on the FOREVER WAR(TM) and that was the important things...


More Chickenhawk Bullshit denounced in part 2.

 

[JoeB131]

Dance of the ChickenHawks Part 2... Is that you, Dick Cheney?

No Bin Ladin did not attack Japan, but by his logic, he was justified in doing so given what Japan did, paying for the 1991 Gulf War and sending troops to Iraq after the 2003 removal of Saddam from power. The point here is you obviously thought of Japan as some innocent pacifist nation, not involved and so not on the target list. But that is simply false.

Except Bin Laden's issue wasn't the liberation of Kuwait, it was the economic warfare we were continuting to inflict on Iraq and the continued occupation of Saudi Arabia. Japan had nothing to do with that.

The 12 Marines died, not because of the war in Afghanistan, but because BIDEN decided to "END IT" and hastily withdrew all U.S. and NATO troops. Because of this stupid action, he had to send them back, back into unfavorable conditions, conditions created by JOE BIDEN's decision to get out of Afghanistan.

Uh, no, guy, he had to send people back hastily because the chicken shit, corrupt, drug dealing, child molesting fuckups that we pumped 2 Trillion dollars into propping up for the last 20 years DROPPED THEIR FUCKING WEAPONS LIKE A BUNCH OF COWARDS.

Of Course, according to BIDEN, Al Qauda is gone, yet the person in charge of Taliban security in Kabul, the guy who probably allowed the bombing to take place, Khalil Haqqani, is himself a member of Al Qaeda, mentored Bin Ladin too. Nothing like this happened to U.S. troops in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 in Afghanistan. The situation was far more secure in those years with the Taliban FAR from Kabul and in remote regions of Afghanistan or hiding across the border in Pakistan. The deaths of the 13 U.S. troops just go to show how stupid BIDEN's Afghanistan policy since April 2021 has been. Again, the troop deaths yesterday exceed any of the annual U.S. troop deaths for the years 2015 to 2020, with the exception of 2019. Just one day of Biden's rushed evacuation, not apart of the war at all, because BIDEN abandoned prosecution of the war back in April of 2021.

Biden is following the agreement Trump laid out.

Look man, I'm happy Biden has decided that after 20 years, the FOREVER WAR(TM) is kind of a terrible idea. I mean, sweet evil Jesus, the Soviets couldn't subdue these people, what makes you think we could?

As far as U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, look no further back than 2015, because that was the current situation that BIDEN abandoned and it was not 2,400 dead, it was 66 over those six years. You can take data from 10 or 15 years ago and make it a description of the situation in recent times. That is deceptive or out right lying and if not that just ignorant.

No, the thing that happened in the last six years is we retreated to our bases and didn't engage the Taliban, who slowly took over the country...

This is what Afghanistan looked like, right before Trump surrendered to them.

2/3rds of the country under Taliban control or contested.

YOu see, the ironic thing was, the REpublicans were just fine with leaving Afghanistan. When Democrats in Congress tried to put conditions on our withdrawal, Trump vetoed the defense bill until they were removed.

But since Republicans are basically slimey, they are happy to use those troop coffins as soap boxes and slap a MAGA sticker on the hearse.

More Chickenhawks Plucked in Part III.

 

[JoeB131]

As for Embassy attacks, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were completely destroyed. Were not talking about the harmless rocket than lands on embassy grounds some where without hurting anyone.

And so we redesigned our embassies to be more secure. Problem solved. Of course, diplomatic personnel still get killed and embassies still get bombed... but it's not an existential threat.

Most Americans understand China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are threats. China is threatening to invade and take Taiwan. Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Kuwait. North Korea now has 250 Kiloton nuclear weapons that can reach Washington D.C.. These are serious threats and only the foolish or ignorant would ignore them.

Okay, let's look at your list.

Taiwan is legally part of China. There's no US Embassy in Taipei, Taiwan does not have a seat in the UN. China is well within it's legal rights to put down Taiwan as the US would be in sending in troops to put down that foolishness in Portland. They won't- because Taiwan and China have an economically co-dependent relationship. The only thing that would change that is if Taiwan tried to declare itself independent,which China would see as a violation of it's soverignty.

. Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Kuwait.

I k now you meant "Crimea" here and I could have taken the opportunity to make fun of you, but I won't.

Okay. Let's look at that. The Crimea is something like 90% Ethnic Russian. Under the USSR it was only part of the Ukranian SSR for administrative purposes. The areas that Russia is "invading" are areas where there is a RUSSIAN majority, and only because the Ukrainians violated their promises to let ethnic Russians have a meaningful say.

Now, because I'm not a partisan twit, here's where I will criticize Obama and Hillary. They STUPIDLY got behind the Orange Revolution that toppled a legitimately elected government that Ethnic Russians supported.
Russia could crush the Ukraine like a bug if it wanted to, and there's not much the world would do about it.

North Korea now has 250 Kiloton nuclear weapons that can reach Washington D.C.. These are serious threats and only the foolish or ignorant would ignore them.

Okay, we have nukes in the Megatons... And North Korea is kind of small.

The REAL threat of North Korea isn't what it's government might do, it's what happens if the government collapses, and millions of refugees flood into South Korea and China looking for food. Its why for all the bluster by whichever Kim is in charge, we dutifully send them shiploads of rice every year.

Wars don't end simply because one side decides to walk away. The other groups involved always have a say in that. History has shown for the past half century that what happens in Afghanistan does not stay in Afghanistan.

No, history shows that if you keep sticking your dick in a hornet's nest, you are going to get stung. We keep thinking Afghanistan is one sexy, sexy hornet's nest.

Fortress America will not work for security. The United States learned that over a century ago. Two World Wars taught the United States the hard way that national security begins overseas. When your engaged with the world, especially with international security issues, you have a better chance of deterring war, and stopping those that would terrible harm to the world and the United States. A forward presence overseas increases intelligence capabilities which are vital to stopping terrorist. The United States just lost much of its intelligence capability in Afghanistan through BIDEN's stupid withdrawal. The weaker your intelligence, the weaker your ability to stop terrorist attacks from happening in the first place.

The fact that our vaunted Intelligence Agencies couldn't find Bin Laden for years, really thought that Saddam had WMD's and failed to predict the Taliban would win, I would say that the only tragedy is that the Taliban didn't overrun Langley.

Here's the underlying problem with the Forever War(TM). It actually costs us friends and good will around the world... from Gitmo to Abu Grahib.

No, protecting ones security NEVER ENDS. That is reality. It does not mean endless war or any other BULLSHIT made up liberal slogan of the past 10 years. It means doing what is necessary to protect the lives and way of life of people. Sometimes military force is needed to do that.

And when are you signing up, buddy? It seems to me you chickenhawks are pretty keen on sending other people's kids off to war...

More Chickenhawks deep fried in Part 4, and then I'm done.

 

[skye]

Do you approve or disapprove of Joe Biden's performance on Afghanistan?​

Does this answer your question OP?

​

 

[JoeB131]

You can role around all you want to on the idea that we might have supported someone that later caused us harm in the future, but again, that was no more true, than JOSEPH STALIN and World War II. You have take care of events as you experience them and do what is right at the time. Your never going to be perfectly prepared for every eventuality and often you have to simply go with the best options despite possible risks. The United States has supported a lot of countries and groups around the world that continue to support the United States today.

Yes, we do fine when we support people who SHARE OUR VALUES.

When we make deals with the devils, we either have people who turn on us (Stalin, the radicals in Afghanistan, Saddam, Bin Laden) or we support people who are so awful that their people hate us (The Shah, Somoza, Marcos, Batista, etc. )

Sorry, but if Bush wanted to get rich from oil, allowing Saddam to seize a good portion of it, would have been his best bet. When you prevent a tyrant like Saddam from controlling and squeezing the worlds oil supply, you keep the oil flowing which keeps the price down. Cheap oil is good for the global economy, not necessarily for the oil producer and those that might profit from the sale of oil. AS said before,

Quite the contrary, Saddam controlling his own oil is something big oil can't stand... Look at who we've been economically squeezing for the last 40 years. Saddam, the Iranians, and Venezuela How dare those third world people claim to have a say in how they use their profits of their resources?

The United States was definitely in weaker position because it abandoned South Vietnam. It definitely hurt U.S. credibility, and led to more bold action by America's enemies around the world. You can play up any scenario saying otherwise, but it won't change the fact that America enemies feared the United States less after Vietnam which influenced their decision making when conducting aggressive actions that the United States in years past might of responded to.

What made the US weaker in Vietnam was the whole world knew we were in the wrong.

Tell me true, where were our vaunted Allies in Vietnam? The French pulled out, The British never got involved, the Japanese, the German, NATO... none of our allies went in with us.

The world looked on in horror at Mai Lai or the carpet bombing of Hanoi, and became angry when the Pentagon papers exposed that our "leaders" knew the war was unwinnable because most Vietnamese considered Ho Chi Mihn to be a national hero.

 

[Lakhota]

Never forget.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Do you approve or disapprove of Joe Biden's performance on Afghanistan?​

DISAPPROVE!

I feel Biden has made mistakes in the planning of the exit from Afghanistan.
After it is over the true story will come out.
Biden must be held accountable for all mistakes he made.
Unlike the Trump minions, the majority of Biden supporters will not make excuses for his mistakes.
Biden supporters will not be minions like Trump supporters.

 

[Lakhota]

Remember Trump and the Kurds!

 

[tshrimp]

Drop Joe off in Kabul and have him make his way to the airport. Let him eat his own cooking.

 

[Mac-7]

But amnesia is not allowed so:

If trump were president and the clusterfuck going on in afghanistan was taking place on his watch you could rip him a new asshole over it

but biden is the president and the decision to launch this fiasco was his alone

 

[Lakhota]

We must never forget how Trump abandoned the Kurds!

• Trump defends decision to abandon Kurdish allies in Syria - AP News​

  https://apnews.com / article / donald-trump-syria-ap-to... - 220k - similar pages
  Oct 8, 2019 ...WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump cast his decision to abandon Kurdish fighters in Syria as fulfilling a campaign promise to withdraw ...

• Trump Abandoned the Kurds: Here's What Has Happened Since​

  https://www.rollingstone.com / politics / politics-news / why-trump-decision-aband / - 646k -similar pages
  Now that Trump has betrayed the Kurds, who are no longer cooperating with U.S. efforts to remove the prisoners, and ordered the removal of all ...

• Kurds Have Paid Dearly for Trump's Reckless Withdrawal From Syria​

  https://www.bloomberg.com / opinion / articles / 2020-09-17 / kurds-have-paid-dearly-f... - 410k -similar pages
  Sep 16, 2020 ... The Kurds Have Paid Dearly for Trump's Recklessness. A new report details the horrific consequences of the U.S. ... Abandoned by the U.S..