Biden's Anticipated Foreign Policy (2 Viewers)

[The_Doc_Man]

It was not necessarily because you made the remark about Gaza. It was the fact that it cemented what millions of people think of the USA foreign policy. 'If in doubt - nuke the b*s*ards'. We see it in films*, We saw it in Japan and we saw the USA second best weapon in Vietnam with napalming innocent people. Now we know that because a respected person like you said it, we know it's true what we see. All we need here is the Doc championing the use of nuclear weapons and I think we may all give up.
I'll be honest, I know many here hate me (no idea why, although they say truth hurts) and you think I'm an idiot, but, I can't even understand how Americans think that a comment about dropping a nuclear bomb can be acceptable. To any normal person, it is an absolute disgrace.

*the films I'm referring to are Wargames and Outbreak which starred Dustin Hoffman. I suspect there are many more.

Col

Col, since you seem to take note of USA policy as shown through its entertainment, I'll answer in that vein first.

I won't be championing the use of nuclear weapons because of another form of USA entertainment. There is a video game that I play sometimes, called Fallout 3 from Bethesda Softworks (or whatever name they have have become recently as a result of corporate buyouts and rebranding.) The 1st-person "shooter" game is intensely immersive, has some fantasy elements, but does an absolutely chilling job of showing what the aftermath of a nuclear war would resemble. The devastation that would level a major USA city (in this case, Washington DC) is SO well depicted that the aftermath of such a holocaust is something we can't let happen. Play that game for a while and you would realize that nukes are a terrible last resort. If you have reached the impasse that "justifies" nukes then you have reached the ultimate lose-lose situation.

Then, of course, there is a famous Isaac Asimov quote: “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

A quote from Foundation

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

www.goodreads.com

(I provided a reference because sometimes I misquote things.)

I shiver to think of what the world will look like in 2024. How many nations will fall? Afghanistan is gone. Pakistan harbored Bin Laden for a long time and were inimical to our viewpoint. Russia is blockading the Ukraine's ports. How long before that falls apart? China will try to play hardball to get Taiwan. How long will that take? You can say "It is their problem." But you can say that ONLY if you are deaf, blind, and stupid. Because once the barbarians take over that part of the world, who is next?

I'm not a pacifist. Actually, I'm somewhat more hawkish. The problem is the internal contradiction that we think ourselves better than our enemies because they inflict atrocities on their victims. The problem we give ourselves is that we are not willing to do what it takes to totally destroy the barbarians because "we don't have problems with their people, only with their leaders." The problem we give ourselves is to say, "Oh, we are not that kind of person." Bad guys who want your stuff stop only when you beat them down so bad that they realize maybe it isn't worth pursuing. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Col, you and I are from the wrong generation to have vivid first-hand recollections of wars seen up-close and personal. The Battle of Britain was won because England finally got rid of Clement Attlee (the appeaser) and fought hard against Hitler's forces until it became too expensive for him to continue the onslaught. (He needed the Luftwaffe for the Russian Front.)

I didn't fight in Vietnam because my health issues made me fail the physical, but I would have gone if drafted. We saw that because the politicians ran the war (excuse me, "police action") we got nowhere because we weren't ready to do to the VC exactly what they were doing to us. The politicians didn't have the stomach for it. But the problem of being a "kinder, gentler" society is that when the barbarians come to the door, you had better hope that you still have your guns.

 

[Steve R.]

But the problem of being a "kinder, gentler" society is that when the barbarians come to the door, you had better hope that you still have your guns.

The US has a two-fold problem. One, which the Taliban represents, the US refuses to acknowledge Islamic aggression, especially germane with the advent of Obama. Islamist's are quite open in proclaiming the unilateral imposition of Islamist theocracies, a side effect is the eradication of Judeo/Christian values and those people who are Christian or Jewish. In the case of Turkey (as one example), the US is actively supporting a government which is anti-Christian. Lebanon used to be Christian, but the West threw them under the bus. It is culturally suicidal to support Islamist states while failing to support Jewish/Christian states.

Starting with Obama's "transformation" of the US, the "barbarians" are inside the gates. The conspiracy angle, Obama was the "Manchurian Candidate", and Biden is mindlessly continuing with that "transformation". The left, through their extraordinarily successful messaging have sold this "transformation" to the US public as being the '"kinder, gentler" society' under the guise of diversity is great. The reality is that this diversity is leading to Balkanization, which Pat Buchanan identified as a future problem years ago. Very prescient. Surprisingly Buchanan has not been resurrected for the news shows.

Without going back to review why the Roman Empire fell; from memory: The Roman Empire fell (in simplistic terms) because of the concept of what it meant to be Roman was dissipated and by corruption. Seems that the left today, by promoting an anti-American agenda, proposing the elimination of citizenship, and "buying" votes is re-creating the same environment which allowed the Roman Empire to collapse.

 

[Isaac]

You can say "It is their problem." But you can say that ONLY if you are deaf, blind, and stupid. Because once the barbarians take over that part of the world, who is next?

.......................

The problem we give ourselves is that we are not willing to do what it takes to totally destroy the barbarians because "we don't have problems with their people, only with their leaders." The problem we give ourselves is to say, "Oh, we are not that kind of person." Bad guys who want your stuff stop only when you beat them down so bad that they realize maybe it isn't worth pursuing. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

...................... we got nowhere because we weren't ready to do to the VC exactly what they were doing to us. The politicians didn't have the stomach for it. But the problem of being a "kinder, gentler" society is that when the barbarians come to the door, you had better hope that you still have your guns.

Thank you. This is a nice summary for all those who think "leaving the rest of the world alone" is a good idea.

IMHO, if America (and, occasionally, to a smaller extent, a couple others) weren't worrying about the 'rest of the world' and trying to do something about it, apocalyptic-level chaos would have already ruined the globe probably and would in the space of 2-4 decades if we completely drew back and stopped challenging evil everywhere. Are our motives always that? Of course not, but that's not an excuse to stop doing what we know for a fact needs to be done.

Afghanistan wasn't a failed proposition from the beginning. It BECAME a failed proposition as we executed poorly, hesitantly, and never quite enough. As well as the idiotic thing Biden just did.

Funny - Biden didn't run on a platform emphasis of "ending endless foreign wars", like Trump did. (At least, if he mentioned it, it was nowhere near Trump's emphasis). Rather, Biden just decided recently, post election, to try it out, as he saw that even just the position itself (without much action) made many people like Trump. Then with no planning or strategy or wisdom whatsoever, he executed his toy idea as dumb as possible and probably cemented his demise completely.

As a Democrat, when 100% of the liberal media is running angry headlines against you, you're done - because that media is what they depend on.

Dear Biden, thanks a lot for losing another chunk of the Middle East while simultaneously cancelling the Keystone. You're a genius, old fella!

 

[Isaac]

The US has a two-fold problem. One, which the Taliban represents, the US refuses to acknowledge Islamic aggression, especially germane with the advent of Obama. Islamist's are quite open in proclaiming the unilateral imposition of Islamist theocracies, a side effect is the eradication of Judeo/Christian values and those people who are Christian or Jewish. In the case of Turkey (as one example), the US is actively supporting a government which is anti-Christian. Lebanon used to be Christian, but the West threw them under the bus. It is culturally suicidal to support Islamist states while failing to support Jewish/Christian states.

Well said. It is long past time to stop pretending on the subject of Islam.

 

[Steve R.]

Will Biden get the Nobel Peace prize for ending the Afghanistan war?
After all, Henry Kissinger received the Nobel Peace prize for the US abandoning Vietnam.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The common factors in the recent conflicts [wars] are Bush, Bush, and Cheney. After long protracted wars, we usually leave these countries unstable and a breeding ground for future conflicts. We are good at breaking things but horrible at nation-building.

 

[Isaac]

The common factors in the recent conflicts [wars] are Bush, Bush, and Cheney

That's not untrue, but I believe it would be just as fair to flip the characterization:

The common factors during the tenure of Bush, Bush and Cheney were events in Iraq and Afghanistan

People talk a lot about a politician solely "causing", as well as solely "inheriting", but there is a 3rd reality: Events simply happening during.

 

[Steve R.]

As a follow-up to the concept of "barbarians at the gate".

Taliban will declare the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in resounding defeat of the US-backed government

A Taliban official said the regime will return the nation to its pre-war name, which was only recognized by a handful of countries from 1996 to 2001.

news.yahoo.com

Starting with the Obama administration, referring to radical Islam as a threat to US culture made you a racist bigot. The "woke" left has successfully metastasized the mantra that Western culture is vile and that we need to embrace, in the name of diversity, the values of various minority cultures that have supposedly been repressed by Western culture.

Those who are "woke" are seemingly oblivious to what would happen to them should radical Islam spread into the US. Radical Islamist will not respect "diversity". The US female Olympic soccer team would never have been allowed. If allowed, their protests would have probably landed them in jail. So those who are protesting against US Western cultural values need to look into the mirror and reflect on whether an Islamic theocracy would really a better alternative. The US female Olympic soccer member should have been grateful because of Western values that they had the opportunity to play.

As a side note. Obama gave a speech after leaving office claiming that it was now time for a female president. Well, if he really believed that, then he should have stepped aside to let Hillary become the presidential candidate. The fact that he did not documents that for many on the left, their supposed commitment is nothing but virtue signalling hot air.

 

[AccessBlaster]

People talk a lot about a politician solely "causing", as well as solely "inheriting", but there is a 3rd reality: Events simply happening during.

The Iraq war was based on a lie about Saddam Hussein having WMDs. IF you wanted to take out Saddam Hussein for the Kurdish genocide then a well-placed cruise missile or a CIA spook with a good rifle might be appropriate, If it's good enough for Osama bin Laden then...

Secondly, the day they killed Osama bin Laden the Afghanistan mission was over. That's if we are buying the official reason we were there in the first place.

 

[Isaac]

The Iraq war was based on a lie about Saddam Hussein having WMDs. IF you wanted to take out Saddam Hussein for the Kurdish genocide then a well-placed cruise missile or a CIA spook with a good rifle might be appropriate, If it's good enough for Osama bin Laden then...

Secondly, the day they killed Osama bin Laden the Afghanistan mission was over. That's if we are buying the official reason we were there in the first place.

You make some good points - and the WMD lie is a good reminder for me, although I'm not convinced that that was the sole reason for everything, but I agree, it was a deceptive last-straw to gain public support, since most of the public is pretty short sighted and needs to see how it will immediately benefit them.

Question for you. Let's say that we did nothing in Iraq ever except take out Saddam and leave, and take out Osama and leave. Let's say we never threaten China or Russia over expansion behavior, and we never threaten Iran with the threat of war. (I think that's a fair question, since we probably both would agree that hollow threats are useless, and wouldn't come into play - they're either real threats, or we can't make them).

If you had to gamble on it, what do you think the current situation in all of that might be?

Remember, you'd have like 30 years of all bad actors knowing that America does nothing proactively with the exception of targeted assassinations of the occasional despot.

 

[Steve R.]

The Iraq war was based on a lie about Saddam Hussein having WMDs. IF you wanted to take out Saddam Hussein for the Kurdish genocide then a well-placed cruise missile or a CIA spook with a good rifle might be appropriate, If it's good enough for Osama bin Laden then...

Secondly, the day they killed Osama bin Laden the Afghanistan mission was over. That's if we are buying the official reason we were there in the first place.

Agree, the intervention in Iraq was based on a lie. The US should never have intervened in Afghanistan. But since we did, the US should have immediately pulled out of Afghanistan the moment the military objective of taking-out Osama bin Laden was achieved.

Moreover, we have no valid reason for being in Syria, an independent sovereign nation.

Since posting, I ran across (on another website) a post concerning Muammar al-Qaddafi. That is another example of the US illegitimately taking out the leader of Libya. I believe the impetus for this illegal action was Hillary Clinton.

Unilateral US actions violating the sovereignty of other nations opens us up to other countries doing the same. Given that Iran would be justified in intervening in some US city because Iran believes their citizens are being persecuted in the US.

 

[Isaac]

Unilateral US actions violating the sovereignty of other nations

I disagree with that characterization of all we have done

 

[Steve R.]

I disagree with that characterization of all we have done

What (positive) "all we have done"?

On what basis can the US claim to be the world's police authority?
Presumably the UN is supposed to be the world's police authority, but then the UN is essentially anti-American.

Morality is highly subjective. The Taliban consider Western culture to be an anathema. So they would perceive of themselves as being morally superior to the US. So if they were to conduct a police action in the US, they would feel fully justified. Given that how could one then say that the Taliban was "wrong"?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Question for you. Let's say that we did nothing in Iraq ever except take out Saddam and leave, and take out Osama and leave. Let's say we never threaten China or Russia over expansion behavior, and we never threaten Iran with the threat of war. (I think that's a fair question, since we probably both would agree that hollow threats are useless, and wouldn't come into play - they're either real threats, or we can't make them).

I agree hollow threats are useless, isolation and economic sanctions paired with surgical strikes should be high on the list. If we lose the hearts and minds of the civilians we are trying to help the victory will be bitter.

Unforuanley our mistakes in Afghanistan are playing out in real-time our allies' lives are on the line.

 

[Isaac]

What (positive) "all we have done"?

I suppose I'm referring to any intervention we've done to try to stop or lessen a humanitarian travesty, including but not limited to, an extremely oppressive regime taking over a relatively freer one.

Morality is high subjective

That's a true statement in the abstract, but it certainly hasn't stopped modern society from making rules to protect people based on widely agreed-upon standards. What if ped0filia was so subjective that only a minority believed it was wrong, would you apply this standoffishness to the debate, or stand firm in your conviction?

On what basis can the US claim to be the world's police authority?

Morality. If you're on a playground and you're supremely powerful compared to most, and some are being tortured, and if you decided to routinely do something about it, I'd commend you--not pick on your lack of legal authority. That's just me, though.

 

[AccessBlaster]

This clip of Biden is priceless, no wonder he's on vacation with Jen.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/082/092/753/original/0750129973b4bdd8.mp4

 

[Steve R.]

This clip of Biden is priceless, no wonder he's on vacation with Jen.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/082/092/753/original/0750129973b4bdd8.mp4

Thanks for posting this one. I was unable to locate the video clip where Biden claimed that the Afghan army was about 340,000 strong (???) and could hold its own against the feeble Taliban. Once again, events have proven Biden wrong.

 

[Steve R.]

I suppose I'm referring to any intervention we've done to try to stop or lessen a humanitarian travesty, including but not limited to, an extremely oppressive regime taking over a relatively freer one.


That's a true statement in the abstract, but it certainly hasn't stopped modern society from making rules to protect people based on widely agreed-upon standards. What if ped0filia was so subjective that only a minority believed it was wrong, would you apply this standoffishness to the debate, or stand firm in your conviction?


Morality. If you're on a playground and you're supremely powerful compared to most, and some are being tortured, and if you decided to routinely do something about it, I'd commend you--not pick on your lack of legal authority. That's just me, though.

Thanks for providing this additional context.

Since posting, KT McFarland raised an issue that I had overlooked. What if those that you wish to "help" really don't want your "help". The fact that the Taliban has taken over Afghanistan implies that many people in Afghanistan support radical Islam and don't want the US there.

Obviously, there are a substantial number of those in Afghanistan who wanted to bring Afghanistan into the 20th century. Unfortunately, they are now trouble. That raises the conundrum question, at what point would US "help" be justified given that a substantial portion of the population may not want US "help"?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Only eight months into Biden's term and it's one humanitarian crisis after another and still no accountability. Impeach this embarrassment.

 

[Isaac]

Thanks for providing this additional context.

Since posting, KT McFarland raised an issue that I had overlooked. What if those that you wish to "help" really don't want your "help". The fact that the Taliban has taken over Afghanistan implies that many people in Afghanistan support radical Islam and don't want the US there.

Obviously, there are a substantial number of those in Afghanistan who wanted to bring Afghanistan into the 20th century. Unfortunately, they are now trouble. That raises the conundrum question, at what point would US "help" be justified given that a substantial portion of the population may not want US "help"?

Totally valid point and I am with you on this one. From people not wanting our help, or wanting a little $ but not cooperating in the general goal of freedom and decency, or every faction wanting to posit themselves as the 'good guys' and manipulating the heck out of us (it seems like), to corruption and loss of money, to US being more motivated to help than THEY are to even wanting the help - I agree, these are all in play in many circumstances so we have to be judicious in the whole thing.
Having said that, a stable and democratic country anywhere is in our interest of world safety, rather than an unstable or despotic regime which by definition seeks more of itself and tries to grow.

I'm definitely not 'just' blaming the US on this one, for sure.

I'm not sure why the Iraqis seem to have done better than Afghans when it came to fighting back against the bad guys. It seems that
1) people are terrified to the bones of these Taliban and what they do
2) many people like them