Biden's Anticipated Foreign Policy (1 Viewer)

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 09:18
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
I would also call the multitudinous testimonies of disappointed Afghans right now, devastated at the thought of Taliban rule, and the desperate many clawing their way to the airport, "wanting it" (meaning wanting what they were seemingly headed towards rather than Taliban rule).
A realpolitik solution, hand each person who is anti-Taliban a gun so they can resist.

While the US (Western world) is not currently involved in a massive world war, the arrival of refuges does use resources that could have been used for the "war" effort. It is humanitarian to "accept" refugee, but what would the refugees offer in terms of helping the country accepting the refugees in fighting capabilities and the production of food, products, etc? Another thought, if you are "retreating" and accepting refugees, the "enemy" is strengthened in the areas that they control.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 09:18
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
When we lost the Vietnam War a similar thing happened, hundreds of thousands of refugees were dumped in Orange County California. In the 1970s this devastated our local communities and some of these folks have still not assimilated despite being here for 40+ years. People think this will not happen to their community but imagine 100,000 Afghans dropped off in Phoenix AZ or Nashville TN. The point is losing war after war has major consequences on OUR existing culture and citizens.
This raises the concern: Do the refugees want to be assimilated? To a degree, they did not really come by choice; but to escape some-sort of immediate threat.

Then there is the case of Ilhan Omar, who is the beneficiary of resettlement. Instead of showing gratitude, she is condemning the country that "saved" her and has provided her the opportunity to succeed in the US. This speaks (as well as the open southern border) to the rise of suicidal policies by the US.

I have not yet seen sufficiently hard news, but I am hearing (rumors) that the nations of Western Europe are finally rejecting accepting refugees because of the damage being done to their societies by the refugees lack of assimilation.
 
Last edited:

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:18
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,981
I'm not a military strategist, but it takes neither an academic nor a soldier to see that our military presence has deterrent and mitigation effects.
Too many of the Iraqi's and most of the Afghani's (even a lot of the women), look at us as oppressor's and an occupying force. Clearly the Afghan army, equipped with the best that your tax dollars can buy didn't actually want what we offered and they don't actually care about the oppression of their womenfolk. Once the occupying force left, they IMMEDIATELY went back to their 7th century model. They didn't pass Go but they sure as hell stopped to collect the billions of dollars worth of offerings we left them and are proceeding apace to sell them to our enemies. And the stories of the President we installed leaving the country with millions in cash is very likely to be true.

You can only help people who want to be helped. If the NGO staff is in danger, they should go home or go help the Hattians, they are in deep trouble again. Unless the Clinton foundation actually delivers what it promised for the last earthquake :( You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. These people do NOT want our help.

Trump's idea of dividing Iraq into three countries was on target. That is what should have happened at the end of WWI instead of the stupid lines that were drawn by the Treaty of Versailles. That idiotic partitioning of the Middle East after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire was the actual cause of much of the strife in the area. Are you aware of the hatred the Sunni's and Shiites feel for each other? Why would you EVER mush them together. They should have followed first normal form when drawing the boundaries. Another example is Yugoslavia. They survived for 40 years because they had a marginally benign dictator. Then they started killing each other - Ethnic cleansing. How about Lebanon? More ethnic cleansing. The Afghans are a very cohesive ethnic group like the Swedes. Their differences are religious. One group wants to live in the 7th century. The other sees a benefit in a more secular way of life. We don't approve of the Afghan way of living but it isn't our place to "give" them something else. We GAVE them the means to free themselves from oppression but they said - no thanks. We like having our women be slaves.

I absolutely agree with saving the Afghans who worked with us and their families. But anyone with any common sense KNOWS that you evacuate the civilians BEFORE you withdraw the troops. That was Trump's plan which the Biden administration simply cancelled in February because they could never be seen to implement a Trump plan. Now we are left with complete chaos and we had to send back more troops than we brought home and we still can't even secure the airport. Who knows who we're going to end up taking in. We are no longer in a position to vet anyone. We had to destroy all our records before we abandoned our embassy.

We have also p***** off our closest allies. I wouldn't be surprised if Saudi Arabia cut off our supply of oil for the danger we put them in by arming the Taliban with modern weapons and tons of ammunition. The British and the French have both sent in their special forces people to evacuate their citizens. We're telling ours, "if you can get inside the airport, we might have room for you on a plane". What kind of cooperation are we ever going to get again from the locals and our allies. Biden really screwed the pooch with this move and he did it deliberately and with malice aforethought because Trump wanted to do it differently.
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 09:18
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
As a side note: The Biden administration expected the Taliban to win (eventually). This narrative has been drowened out by the narrative, analysis, and noise over how quickly the Taliban won. The quick collapse of the Afgan goverment/miltary was baked-in by the US pulling the plug.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 06:18
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
Too many of the Iraqi's and most of the Afghani's (even a lot of the women), look at us as oppressor's and an occupying force. Clearly the Afghan army, equipped with the best that your tax dollars can buy didn't actually want what we offered and they don't actually care about the oppression of their womenfolk. Once the occupying force left, they IMMEDIATELY went back to their 7th century model. They didn't pass Go but they sure as hell stopped to collect the billions of dollars worth of offerings we left them and are proceeding apace to sell them to our enemies. And the stories of the President we installed leaving the country with millions in cash is very likely to be true.

You can only help people who want to be helped. If the NGO staff is in danger, they should go home or go help the Hattians, they are in deep trouble again. Unless the Clinton foundation actually delivers what it promised for the last earthquake :( You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. These people do NOT want our help.

Trump's idea of dividing Iraq into three countries was on target. That is what should have happened at the end of WWI instead of the stupid lines that were drawn by the Treaty of Versailles. That idiotic partitioning of the Middle East after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire was the actual cause of much of the strife in the area. Are you aware of the hatred the Sunni's and Shiites feel for each other? Why would you EVER mush them together. They should have followed first normal form when drawing the boundaries. Another example is Yugoslavia. They survived for 40 years because they had a marginally benign dictator. Then they started killing each other - Ethnic cleansing. How about Lebanon? More ethnic cleansing. The Afghans are a very cohesive ethnic group like the Swedes. Their differences are religious. One group wants to live in the 7th century. The other sees a benefit in a more secular way of life. We don't approve of the Afghan way of living but it isn't our place to "give" them something else. We GAVE them the means to free themselves from oppression but they said - no thanks. We like having our women be slaves.

I absolutely agree with saving the Afghans who worked with us and their families. But anyone with any common sense KNOWS that you evacuate the civilians BEFORE you withdraw the troops. That was Trump's plan which the Biden administration simply cancelled in February because they could never be seen to implement a Trump plan. Now we are left with complete chaos and we had to send back more troops than we brought home and we still can't even secure the airport. Who knows who we're going to end up taking in. We are no longer in a position to vet anyone. We had to destroy all our records before we abandoned our embassy.

We have also p***** off our closest allies. I wouldn't be surprised if Saudi Arabia cut off our supply of oil for the danger we put them in by arming the Taliban with modern weapons and tons of ammunition. The British and the French have both sent in their special forces people to evacuate their citizens. We're telling ours, "if you can get inside the airport, we might have room for you on a plane". What kind of cooperation are we ever going to get again from the locals and our allies. Biden really screwed the pooch with this move and he did it deliberately and with malice aforethought because Trump wanted to do it differently.

Don't get me wrong - I am 1000% appalled by the way this withdrawal was done, of course, as everyone seems to be. And in fact, it's THAT that I feel ought to get a good solid percentage of the blame on this whole fiasco.

We GAVE them the means to free themselves from oppression but they said - no thanks. We like having our women be slaves.
Well, I disagree with that, and can easily find a hundred articles detailing testimony that makes it look to me like most regular Afghans absolutely detest the Taliban, many did risk their lives working with the US, but many are also scared into silence--a silence that you might interpret how you wish, but is probably grounded in a well-founded distrust for the US following through in a decent, honest way - a distrust which you can now no longer dismiss, as it has just been validated & magnified times a million all around the world, thanks to Joe Biden.

I agree with all your comments about boundaries using common sense, and certainly wish I could draw some myself.

I disagree about NGO's, I think protecting them in harsh environments is a noble thing for a modern, compassionate, super power society to engage in. But I don't want to keep arguing on certain things we fundamentally won't agree on anyway.

We can all hopefully agree that Biden took a mediocre-to-poor situation and made it beyond horrible.

(Every human being faces the same temptation. Haven't you ever told your spouse "don't do that, it'll be awful", then they do it, and then you kind of tune your reaction to the outcome in a way that is a bit unhelpful and probably worsens it a bit (or a lot), just to be petty and make a point? I'll admit, I'm sure I have at some point. Not my best moment, but everyone has been petty or bitter at some point and politicians often deliberately make things worse to make a point. I am unsure if Biden did this more out of senility, more out of simply not caring, or more out of the phenomenon I have just described - they're all awful.)
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 06:18
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
Isaac, this is going to sound harsh, perhaps, and it is NOT intended to be personal, but we have only to look at France with their overthrow of their monarchy and the USA with our overthrow of remote English rule. We can look at the Free French Army and the various other underground forces in WWII. Or look at the Russian Revolution of the peasants against the Tsars.

We and the other people I named wanted it bad enough to stand up and fight for it at continued personal risk. We didn't turn tail and run. We didn't flee. We didn't cower in dark corners or run like scared rabbits. We fought, bled, and died for the cause. Whether we are talking about survival of the fittest in the wilderness or forging a new a nation, if you can't put skin in the game, you don't want to win. You want to just dabble. The only freedom that you truly treasure is that for which you fought to obtain with ferocity and determination.

As to the Afghan interpreters? They put skin in the game. Bring them here. They personally demonstrated that they understand the idea of risk for a desirable goal.

I will stop here because if I take this any farther, I will likely insult a lot of people very quickly.

It's a fair point. I can't dispute that when you need to overthrow your government for a better life, you'll need to put in a sacrifice and there is no two ways about it.

There is a difference in the clarity of mind that naturally existed in the minds of early US colonies, vs. the literal decades upon decades upon decades of hell - promises, broken, being beaten up for generations upon generations and tortured as a result of any resistance - which I think understandably puts the Afghan people in a more confused, weakened and battered position. Also, there is the simple matter of ability. Not every oppressed people is literally capable - every single case is different - from access to arms, to numbers, to geography and how tight the oppressor's hold already is.

Your point is well taken, and is a harsh reality. I just want to force myself to honestly think of what the differences may be. But you're right - ultimately that nation will have to pay the sacrificial price needed if they are going to overthrow. But every case is different.

Your examples of successful overthrows would be perfectly applicable IF it were true that the capabilities of every oppressed people against their oppressor were exactly identical - but the likelihood that's the case is zero.

Whether the Afghan people have failed to improve their lot due to (as Pat suggests) not actually wanting to, or (as you have pointed out) possibly not being willing to put in a reasonable amount of effort, or due to not lack of willingness but lack of ability, or a combination of everything......time will tell. (maybe).
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:18
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,981
Well, I disagree with that
We helped them build an army of 300,000. We trained them. We outfitted them with the best gear money can buy and they folded like a cheap suit. If we had been smart, we would have trained the women. THEY were the ones with something to gain. They would have fought to the death to resist the Taliban.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:18
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,308
We helped them build an army of 300,000. We trained them. We outfitted them with the best gear money can buy and they folded like a cheap suit. If we had been smart, we would have trained the women. THEY were the ones with something to gain. They would have fought to the death to resist the Taliban.
Interesting angle there Pat. I like it!
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:18
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,981
I should be President. I have a rational approach to problem solving and I at least try to anticipate unintended consequences;) Don't ever get between a mother and her child.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 08:18
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,001
I should be President. I have a rational approach to problem solving and I at least try to anticipate unintended consequences

Pat, your first sentence and your second sentence are inconsistent. NOBODY these days seems ready to elect someone who is rational and who makes plans for contingencies and consequences. I think you disqualified yourself.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 06:18
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
We helped them build an army of 300,000. We trained them. We outfitted them with the best gear money can buy and they folded like a cheap suit. If we had been smart, we would have trained the women. THEY were the ones with something to gain. They would have fought to the death to resist the Taliban.
What I was disagreeing with was you saying that all of Afghanistan said no thank you.

Check out the pictures at the airport and let me know if it looks like they're embracing the Taliban. Of course the answer is no..
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:18
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,981
NOBODY these days seems ready to elect someone who is rationa
Except that we did try to elect Trump who is at least semi-rational as long as you don't follow him on Twitter. If the Democrats hadn't stolen the election, we would be in a far better place.
What I was disagreeing with was you saying that all of Afghanistan said no thank you.
Look at all those military age young men. Can you think of something they might have done besides attempt to save themselves? They shouldn't be in the position they are in. If we had taken care of the civilians before withdrawing the troops, there would have been far less danger.

I wonder how many of the Taliban we will be taking home with us due to the idiocy of pulling out the troops before pulling out the civilians?
 

conception_native_0123

Well-known member
Local time
Today, 08:18
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
1,826
NOBODY these days seems ready to elect someone who is rational and who makes plans for contingencies and consequences. I think you disqualified yourself
wrong richard. RATIONAL people are. problem is...there are no damn rational people left on Earth!
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 09:18
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
Biden is making terrific progress in restoring US prestige on the world stage.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
He has only been if office for 8 months, that leaves 3 years and 4 months to go; assuming that Kamala doesn't institute a coup.

Since posting, the surge of illegal immigrants into the US has surged reinvigorating that story as headline news. One Fox pundit noted that Mexico is not cooperating with the US on this international crises. Chalk this up as another negative for Good Uncle Old Joe who supposedly could bring people togethr and restore US prestige on the world stage. Biden instead of "solving" the immigration crises is actually promoting an "invasion" of illegal immigrants into this country. Presumably to increase the number of people who would be expected to vote for the Democratic party at election time. This is not how a US President is supposed to govern this country.
 
Last edited:

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 06:18
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,828
Bad news is always released on Friday 😲😲😲

And still no resignations

1631918513076.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom