*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 427
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #380 on: August 18, 2021, 06:57:03 PM »
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2771
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #381 on: August 18, 2021, 08:25:12 PM »
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.

Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9097
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #382 on: August 19, 2021, 01:21:23 AM »
To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch.

That was days ago. Quit living in the past. C'mon man!


« Last Edit: August 19, 2021, 01:22:55 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #383 on: August 19, 2021, 12:48:23 PM »
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.

Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.

What exactly should have happened?  Under what circumstances could they end this unjust occupation and contain the Taliban.  The timeline to withdraw was rushed because the Taliban were becoming increasingly aggressive so the option to stay could quite easily have made the situation worse.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #384 on: August 25, 2021, 08:38:59 PM »
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.

Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.

What exactly should have happened?  Under what circumstances could they end this unjust occupation and contain the Taliban.  The timeline to withdraw was rushed because the Taliban were becoming increasingly aggressive so the option to stay could quite easily have made the situation worse.

The Taliban were increasingly aggressive in the past few months because the US foolishly told them loud and clear we were leaving.  We could have done lots of things differently (and still pulled out), and one easy way to do so is to leave without telling the Taliban when the effective date was going to be...

Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.





*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #385 on: August 25, 2021, 09:44:58 PM »
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.

Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.

What exactly should have happened?  Under what circumstances could they end this unjust occupation and contain the Taliban.  The timeline to withdraw was rushed because the Taliban were becoming increasingly aggressive so the option to stay could quite easily have made the situation worse.

The Taliban were increasingly aggressive in the past few months because the US foolishly told them loud and clear we were leaving.  We could have done lots of things differently (and still pulled out), and one easy way to do so is to leave without telling the Taliban when the effective date was going to be...

Fair enough, although the Taliban also had a written agreement and they would have figured out the US wasn’t keeping those terms so I’m not sure it made a huge difference, especially when the US started removing much of their hardware from the country, but I can see how there might have been a more optimal solution.

Quote
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2021, 09:46:39 PM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #386 on: August 25, 2021, 10:04:18 PM »
Quote
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

Quote
An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.

Got it, so in other words, the war was unjust and the US and NATO should never have invaded?  Is that the argument?

Tracking the killing of civilians is really messy. A source would be nice. I know that the best final assessment of civilians killed by US forces in Iraq can be summed up as "Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians."  At the height of the Iraqi insurgency (2006 through 2008) only about 1 out of every 100 civilian deaths involved US troops in any way. You read that right - 1%. An example year is 2006, when 16,791 civilians were killed by terrorists and insurgents, and only 225 by US troops for that whole year.

I have read a lot less about these numbers in Afghanistan, but given that it was a much more low intensity war overall, I would be surprised if the numbers were dramatically different.

And finally, given that the US has poured billions of USD into Afghanistan to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other things - and has poured in FAR more money than any it could have gotten out by "pulling out natural resources" that's an odd statement.  I'm not going to defend any stealing the US may have done in Afghanistan, but the net is a flow of money and resources INTO, not out of, that country.  And this doesn't include the dramatic increase in civil rights - particularly women's rights - that were fostered under our "puppet" regime. 

Edit: One of the easiest criticisms that domestic (US) opponents of the ongoing war make is that it is so stunningly costly to keep it up (not just to pay for the military stuff, but all the so-called "nation building" stuff too). We've been pumping billions into Afghanistan via the USAID org and other means, and it's expensive. That's going to go away with the Taliban.   

Here's right from the horse's mouth all the pillaging the US government has done since 2002 in Afghanistan:
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan
« Last Edit: August 25, 2021, 10:11:01 PM by existoid »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #387 on: August 25, 2021, 10:21:07 PM »
Quote
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

Quote
An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.

Got it, so in other words, the war was unjust and the US and NATO should never have invaded?  Is that the argument?

Tough to say definitively, but I would prefer they didn’t.

Quote
Quote
Tracking the killing of civilians is really messy. A source would be nice.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan

71,000 total, although no breakdown as to which actions were responsible for what. Drone strikes were notorious for “collateral damage” under Obama, and regulation on those missions were relaxed by Trump.

Quote
I know that the best final assessment of civilians killed by US forces in Iraq can be summed up as "Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians."  At the height of the Iraqi insurgency (2006 through 2008) only about 1 out of every 100 civilian deaths involved US troops in any way. You read that right - 1%. An example year is 2006, when 16,791 civilians were killed by terrorists and insurgents, and only 225 by US troops for that whole year.

Where are these numbers from?

Quote
I have read a lot less about these numbers in Afghanistan, but given that it was a much more low intensity war overall, I would be surprised if the numbers were dramatically different.

They still dropped 7,000 bombs in Afghanistan in 2019. I know it’s a pebble compared to Shock and Awe but that’s a lot of fucking bombs.

Quote
And finally, given that the US has poured billions of USD into Afghanistan to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other things - and has poured in FAR more money than any it could have gotten out by "pulling out natural resources" that's an odd statement.  I'm not going to defend any stealing the US may have done in Afghanistan, but the net is a flow of money and resources INTO, not out of, that country.  And this doesn't include the dramatic increase in civil rights - particularly women's rights - that were fostered under our "puppet" regime. 

Edit: One of the easiest criticisms that domestic (US) opponents of the ongoing war make is that it is so stunningly costly to keep it up (not just to pay for the military stuff, but all the so-called "nation building" stuff too). We've been pumping billions into Afghanistan via the USAID org and other means, and it's expensive. That's going to go away with the Taliban.   

Here's right from the horse's mouth all the pillaging the US government has done since 2002 in Afghanistan:
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan

The government doesn’t get rich from the war directly, it’s a wealth shift from taxpayers to government contractors.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2771
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #388 on: August 26, 2021, 12:17:24 AM »
Quote
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

Quote
An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.

Got it, so in other words, the war was unjust and the US and NATO should never have invaded?  Is that the argument?

Tracking the killing of civilians is really messy. A source would be nice. I know that the best final assessment of civilians killed by US forces in Iraq can be summed up as "Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians."  At the height of the Iraqi insurgency (2006 through 2008) only about 1 out of every 100 civilian deaths involved US troops in any way. You read that right - 1%. An example year is 2006, when 16,791 civilians were killed by terrorists and insurgents, and only 225 by US troops for that whole year.

I have read a lot less about these numbers in Afghanistan, but given that it was a much more low intensity war overall, I would be surprised if the numbers were dramatically different.

And finally, given that the US has poured billions of USD into Afghanistan to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other things - and has poured in FAR more money than any it could have gotten out by "pulling out natural resources" that's an odd statement.  I'm not going to defend any stealing the US may have done in Afghanistan, but the net is a flow of money and resources INTO, not out of, that country.  And this doesn't include the dramatic increase in civil rights - particularly women's rights - that were fostered under our "puppet" regime. 

Edit: One of the easiest criticisms that domestic (US) opponents of the ongoing war make is that it is so stunningly costly to keep it up (not just to pay for the military stuff, but all the so-called "nation building" stuff too). We've been pumping billions into Afghanistan via the USAID org and other means, and it's expensive. That's going to go away with the Taliban.   

Here's right from the horse's mouth all the pillaging the US government has done since 2002 in Afghanistan:
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan

This is pretty much my opinion. I get that we should have never been there in the first place. But we were there, and our presence was making things better. Now after giving them twenty years of hope for a better life we're pulling the rug right out from under them. Girls who grew up thinking they could be doctors are now going to have to live with the reality that their oppressive leaders aren't even going to allow them to learn.

That, to me, is unjust.

It's a fact that was recognized by both Obama and Trump (notice how convenient the latter's timetable to withdraw was; I don't believe for a minute that if he had won the election he would have actually followed through); they both knew that withdrawal would be messy (as did Biden, don't think he wasn't advised as much) and that's why they both essentially ignored it. Biden could have done the same thing. Instead he let himself fall into a political trap set by Trump. Yeah, my opinion on the matter is largely motivated by politics. Biden is a fucking idiot for going along with Trump's plans for withdrawal. In these charged times with so much at stake things like this are going to sink the Democrats.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2771
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #389 on: August 26, 2021, 04:59:32 AM »
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jesse-watters-trump-killed-terrorists-joe-biden-takes-orders-from-them

Faux News doesn't disappoint when it comes to gaslighting propaganda, lol. Remember that time Trump negotiated with the Taliban and released all those prisoners? Does this guy forget that the withdrawal from Afghanistan started with Trump? I don't agree with how Biden has handled this either but Jesus Christ.

Not to belabor the point but this was the guy who totally got played by North Korea because he was charmed by Kim Jong Un's sweet talking flattery, lol. He is literally putty in the hands of anyone willing to effusively praise him.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2021, 05:06:52 AM by Roundy »
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #390 on: August 26, 2021, 06:16:13 PM »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2771
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #391 on: August 26, 2021, 06:19:48 PM »
I take it back. Joe’s fucked this up bad.

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/large-explosion-at-abbey-gate-at-the-kabul-airport-report-677790

Wow, what a shock. Nobody ever saw something like this coming.  ::)
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 943
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #392 on: August 27, 2021, 11:49:47 PM »
Joe's my hero, I love ice cream.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6536
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #393 on: August 28, 2021, 09:32:18 AM »
I take it back. Joe’s fucked this up bad.

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/large-explosion-at-abbey-gate-at-the-kabul-airport-report-677790

Ya know what?
I don't agree.  For one, he's not micromanaging security.
For another...

Quote
The White House said about 12,500 people were evacuated from Kabul in the 24 hours ending at 3 a.m. ET Friday, bringing the total number evacuated from Afghanistan to 111,000, including 5,100 US. citizens.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031649747/kabul-airport-explosions-afghanistan-dead-evacuations?sc=18&f=1001

I had no idea it was that many.  I assumed maybe a thousand.  Not 111,000!
And 12,500 in a 24 hour period is god damn impressive.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1356
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #394 on: August 28, 2021, 11:10:59 AM »
Yeah, but...

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/taliban-afghanistan-biometric-databases-us-b1908312.html

This has the potential to go sideways quickly if they are able/willing to use it the wrong way

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9097
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #395 on: August 30, 2021, 03:49:18 AM »
I see that Joe Biden has survived the Taliban insurgency to become the leader America needs.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2371
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #396 on: August 30, 2021, 05:14:19 AM »
I see that Joe Biden has survived the Taliban insurgency to become the leader America needs.



It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?

Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:



Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6536
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #397 on: August 30, 2021, 05:18:59 AM »
I see that Joe Biden has survived the Taliban insurgency to become the leader America needs.



It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?

Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:



Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.

Yeah.  Low quality video plus sqinting eyes and intentional edit is all they need.  Doesn't even matter that full length, high quality videos exist on the same platform. 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9097
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #398 on: August 30, 2021, 09:22:32 AM »
It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?

Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:



Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.

Fall for what? That looks exactly like narcolepsy where people micro-sleep and zone out during meetings.

God awful embarrassing, whatever the diagnosis. When people are talking to you you look at them, not zone out at the floor. He's supposed to be the president speaking to a world leader at the white house.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6536
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #399 on: August 30, 2021, 09:52:39 AM »
It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?

Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:



Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.

Fall for what? That looks exactly like narcolepsy where people micro-sleep and zone out during meetings.

God awful embarrassing, whatever the diagnosis. When people are talking to you you look at them, not zone out at the floor. He's supposed to be the president speaking to a world leader at the white house.

I'm curious, on what grounds do you make that determination?  Is it because his eyes are not as wide open as you would expect?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.