Afghanistan

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-25-2021, 01:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote: But again, even if we accept that Trump's crew had a plan to negotiate with terrorists and get them to agree to things, why did they put it off until after the 2020 election?  Hell, this isn't even about Trump specifically rather it's about the ability politicians have to convince people they have all the answers when they aren't in any position to do anything.

Maybe Trump gets us out of there the right way if we stuck with him in 2021, maybe Andy Dalton wins the SB for the Bengals in 2020 if we hadn't ditched him for Joe Burrow.  My eyes tell me, not so much...but I can't prove it wouldn't have happened. 

As you say, we could all play the "what if" game all day.  I actually think this is one of the rare moments when Trump would have been better for the situation.  As Trump is unstable and mercurial the Taliban would likely have tread more carefully with Trump.  They'd know he's leaving but any provocation could result in an over the top response.  But, that's just my opinion.

What we do know, and I don't see many people arguing otherwise, is the Biden made a dog's breakfast out of the situation.  What's really going to hurt him, and down ballot Dems, is his repeated assurances that what actually happened would never happen.  It makes him look out of touch and incompetent, and I don't think his follows up have looked much better.  Whether this is a Jimmy Carter moment or not remains to be seen, but the GOP will be able to make a hell of a lot of hay with this.

[*Nately120*]

(08-25-2021, 01:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: but the GOP will be able to make a hell of a lot of hay with this.

What the GOP is going to shift their focus from saying that Joe Biden is a mentally deficient puppet who stole the election and is a dangerous leftwing terrorist-supporting, sex-trafficking pedophile, who wants to turn our country into a communist hellhole so they can attack him on foreign policy as if it were still 2004?  

I'll believe that when I see it.  Right now it's just lost in the typical political "MISS ME YET?" BS, as far as I see it.  Plus, it goes back to everyone who isn't ultra left already knowing full well that Biden was a consolation prize of a president.  Again, Trump had 4 years to do this the right way, then again I'm just a dunce and maybe there was no way in hell we get out of there before 20 years pass and he had to kick the can down the road. 

Hopefully this convinces democrats to move on from Biden in 2024.  Maybe he fell on the sword so the party could move forward. 

[BigPapaKain]

(08-25-2021, 10:02 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Biden's polling is suffering.  It's not about whether we should have withdrawn.  Majority of Americans wanted to.  It's Biden's own performance in this, reflective in the polls.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

As it should be. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-25-2021, 12:47 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But it seems like you're missing my point that complete withdrawal wouldn't have happened without conditions being met according to Trumps own advisors.

They didn't say no withdrawal whatsoever wouldn't happen. Trump removing 80% of our troops is beside the point being made here.

No, I rejected your claim because it was not rooted in reality and then I provided evidence directly from Trump for why it was not rooted in reality. This belief that Trump would have held the Taliban accountable has been repeated by multiple people and it has been addressed multiple times as being baseless. 

No one has attempted to address why Trump removed 80% of the troops without the Taliban meeting conditions. No one has attempted to address why Trump pushed for the May date to be honored. No one has attempted to address why Trump bragged in late June about Biden being unable to stop the withdrawal.

If you want to address why nothing Trump has said or done over the last 18 months supports your belief about what he would say or do, then I am hear to listen.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-25-2021, 01:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, I rejected your claim because it was not rooted in reality and then I provided evidence directly from Trump for why it was not rooted in reality. This belief that Trump would have held the Taliban accountable has been repeated by multiple people and it has been addressed multiple times as being baseless. 

No one has attempted to address why Trump removed 80% of the troops without the Taliban meeting conditions. No one has attempted to address why Trump pushed for the May date to be honored. No one has attempted to address why Trump bragged in late June about Biden being unable to stop the withdrawal.

If you want to address why nothing Trump has said or done over the last 18 months supports your belief about what he would say or do, then I am hear to listen.

What do you mean "rooted in reality". Everything we're talking about that "could have" happened is all speculation. But to claim it as "baseless"  is nonsense.

Nothing you said has refuted what I said. You keep bringing up "80% withdrawal". I specifically said "complete withdrawal" yet you keep ignoring that for some reason and keep going back to your "80%" argument and framing your "reality" around that.

A complete withdrawal means exactly that.....a complete withdrawal and not "80%".

[BFritz21]

(08-25-2021, 01:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, I rejected your claim because it was not rooted in reality and then I provided evidence directly from Trump for why it was not rooted in reality. This belief that Trump would have held the Taliban accountable has been repeated by multiple people and it has been addressed multiple times as being baseless. 

No one has attempted to address why Trump removed 80% of the troops without the Taliban meeting conditions. No one has attempted to address why Trump pushed for the May date to be honored. No one has attempted to address why Trump bragged in late June about Biden being unable to stop the withdrawal.

If you want to address why nothing Trump has said or done over the last 18 months supports your belief about what he would say or do, then I am hear to listen.

You're big on polls and Biden's polls are at a 25% approval rating of his handling of Afghanistan.  

Are you suggesting 75% of Americans don't know what they're talking about?

[*Nately120*]

(08-25-2021, 03:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're big on polls and Biden's polls are at a 25% approval rating of his handling of Afghanistan.  

Are you suggesting 75% of Americans don't know what they're talking about?

Polls also said there was no way Hillary could lose the 2016 election.


EDIT - ok, in all fairness you're holding his belief in polls against him, not vouching for them yourself....I don't think?  I'm not sure, but my major point is that the odds of any of this stuff mattering to voters is slim.

I will say that it makes plenty of sense Biden is getting raked over the coals for this, but unless the GOP rebrands itself soon what difference will it make? A major talking point in the 2020 election was Hunter Biden having a laptop full of supposed kiddie stuff...not Afghanistan. I just don't see the GOP being able to double back to pre-Trump style political talking points to make hay against Biden IF IF IF he even runs again.

[BigPapaKain]

(08-25-2021, 03:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're big on polls and Biden's polls are at a 25% approval rating of his handling of Afghanistan.  

Are you suggesting 75% of Americans don't know what they're talking about?

I'm genuinely surprised it's that high.

But for what it's worth, it's a pretty safe bet to say 75% of Americans don't know what they're talking about in regards to most things. Not saying they're wrong on this one, but people are dumb.

[Dill]

(08-25-2021, 12:47 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But it seems like you're missing my point that complete withdrawal wouldn't have happened without conditions being met according to Trumps own advisors.

They didn't say no withdrawal whatsoever wouldn't happen. Trump removing 80% of our troops is beside the point being made here.

Trump withdrew 80% of US forces and few if any civilians without any conditions being met by the Taliban—except the promise not to stand in the way.

His own secretary of defense attempted to slow down the withdrawal, which was ahead of schedule and destabilizing.

But you are saying COMPLETE withdrawal would not have occurred under Trump unless, suddenly, those conditions were met?

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2021, 03:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're big on polls and Biden's polls are at a 25% approval rating of his handling of Afghanistan.  

Are you suggesting 75% of Americans don't know what they're talking about?

There is this amazing paradigm where Biden could have screwed up, AND it was partly because he followed the roadmap Trump laid out, AND all fo that is because we've been pretty stupid over there.

You see, no one here is saying we approve of what Biden did. I'm guessing the approval rate of his handling of the situation in this forum is 0%. We're just saying that trying to pin all the blame on Biden, or trying to play the hypothetical that Trump would've done better, is asinine based on all of the evidence before us.

[CKwi88]

(08-25-2021, 04:10 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I'm genuinely surprised it's that high.

But for what it's worth, it's a pretty safe bet to say 75% of Americans don't know what they're talking about in regards to most things. Not saying they're wrong on this one, but people are dumb.

75% of Americans don't actually give a shit about Afghanistan either. It just happens to be the topic of the day and was indeed a shit show.

Give it a month or two and most people will have forgotten about it and some will even think that's it's just best we're done with it chaos be damned. Even Fox News will have the prospect of the $3.5 trillion package to spend most their time on by then. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-25-2021, 07:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is this amazing paradigm where Biden could have screwed up, AND it was partly because he followed the roadmap Trump laid out, AND all fo that is because we've been pretty stupid over there.

You see, no one here is saying we approve of what Biden did. I'm guessing the approval rate of his handling of the situation in this forum is 0%. We're just saying that trying to pin all the blame on Biden, or trying to play the hypothetical that Trump would've done better, is asinine based on all of the evidence before us.

Right, I think a lot of people would say that Biden blew it, but to immediately go into the whole "This is evidence he has dementia and you should be sorry you voted for him and not Trump" is a stretch.

75% of Americans can disapprove of Biden's handling of this, but to assume that means 75% of Americans wish Trump were president, or think Trump would have done this the right way is where reality gives way to Trump-oriented wishful thinking.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

We always hold each other accountable you always say, but all I ever ***** hear from you guys is bullshit excuses constantly.

[*Nately120*]

(08-25-2021, 08:11 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: We always hold each other accountable you always say, but all I ever ***** hear from you guys is bullshit excuses constantly.

What do we need to do to hold Biden accountable in your mind?

[BmorePat87]

(08-25-2021, 03:31 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What do you mean "rooted in reality". Everything we're talking about that "could have" happened is all speculation. But to claim it as "baseless"  is nonsense.

Nothing you said has refuted what I said. You keep bringing up "80% withdrawal". I specifically said "complete withdrawal" yet you keep ignoring that for some reason and keep going back to your "80%" argument and framing your "reality" around that.

A complete withdrawal means exactly that.....a complete withdrawal and not "80%".

You claimed Trump would have forced the Taliban to meet the conditions because his advisors said he would. I pointed out that Trump himself never did when he was in office and that he publicly called for his date to be honored despite conditions not being met.

Your claim was completely refuted.

[BmorePat87]

(08-25-2021, 03:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're big on polls and Biden's polls are at a 25% approval rating of his handling of Afghanistan.  

Are you suggesting 75% of Americans don't know what they're talking about?

To start, your premise is flawed. I gave Biden blame on multiple things in this thread. The fact that I also pointed out that Trump bears a lot of responsibility doesn’t mean that I am suggesting you can’t also criticize Biden. Every American should be criticizing the last 4 presidents (as I stated before).

Though I would absolutely suggest that a majority of Americans are pretty misinformed on most things and favorability polls are not an indicator of the public being informed on an issue. That said, I wouldn’t suggest that someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about simply because they give Biden criticism on Afghanistan. I would if they then suggested that Trump had no blame and/or would have done things differently than how he did during his last 10 months in office.

[Dill]

(08-24-2021, 03:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:2. Of course "comparisons are fine." Because it matters very much "if some people share some facets of another ideology" and those facets happen to be values, behaviors, and policies critical to development of authoritarian control.  Discussion of such is important to the maintenance of liberal democracy--especially now. And ruling out comparisons/analogies to authoritarian regimes as invalid in principle is a kind of censorship, an anxious censorship at that because of what such analogies might reveal. So that is why I defend in principle the right to make  social scientific/historical comparisons between the 3rd Reich and current US adminstrations or another. Doing that is not just another way of calling people "Nazis"--at least for people operating social scientific discourse for social scientific purposes. 

Exactly, you engage in Nazi comparisons and you've done so on several occasions. 

That's what you conclude from "it matters very much 'if some people share some facets of another ideology' and those facets happen to be values, behaviors, and policies critical to development of authoritarian control"?  TL;DR? 

I have several times argued that Trump and Trumpists don't (yet) adequately meet social-scientific definitions of fascism, of which Nazism is usually regarded as a subset. That must be what you "remember" as me engaging in Nazi comparisons. Otherwise you have no examples. As with my above quote, you simply have not understood the motives and methods of such comparisons.

I'll restate the rationale for research into authoritarian regimes below, and its applicabiliity to current states, including the US.

(08-24-2021, 03:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, if you don't think Isis fighters were human scum then you've got far worse problems than can ever be addressed in this forum.  Josef Mengele was human scum and a person who sets prisoners on fire and engages in wholesale rape is as well.

Odd then that you find the need to make the comparison at all.  What you are apparently deliberately ignoring is that comparisons of any kind to such extreme groups always, I repeat always, has the effect of making the groups analogous, of linking them together.  Whether you do this deliberately, as I strongly suspect, or out of extreme ignorance, the effect is the same.

It's literally amazing to me the knots you have to tie yourself into to accept this as "logic".  You have an issue with labeling people as "scum" but have zero issue comparing Americans to the Taliban or Nazis.  I suppose I should be grateful in a way, your counter arguments on this topic only reinforce my points.  

As I write this, there are thousands of political scientists, sociologists and historians world wide studying authoritarian regimes past and present, and they are especially interested in how such regimes may emerge from liberal democratic states during economic/social crises. Do you dispute this? 

Those engaged do not call the objects of their study "human scum"--be they individuals, parties, or states. Not even Josef Mengele or ISIS. That doesn't mean they have "problems" or "support" Mengele and ISIS, but rather that such terms offer no descriptive or analytical precision. Demogogues use such language to express and arouse negative emotions, often to demonize minority ethnic groups, and they have no place in social scientific/historical description, where they simply mark the writer's own distortive bias. So this is not a dill quirk in this forum so much as an international standard. So they, as I do, have an "issue with labeling people as 'scum'." Or can you provide counter examples of social science researchers who embrace such language?

One goal of such research is to create a typology of behaviors and an archive of historical/policy knowledge that enables us to recognize the red flags of developing authoritarianism before it is too late--as it is now in states like Russia and Hungary. That means the research has to be applied, and the comparisons made, BEFORE "atrocities" are committed, before emerging groups are openly anti-democratic or "like Nazis." And so they have "zero issue" comparing Americans to the Taliban or Nazis," because the point is not to name-and-blame and they don't assum Americans are already Nazis or Taliban. These are the social-scientific "knots" which I, along with thousands of others, "tie [my]self into knots to accept."  Can you refute this summary of the research rationale by showing there is no such research, or that it is never intended to be applied as described? 

Can you actually counter argue that we should NOT be applying knowledge of authoritarian regimes to US politics during a time when a populist authoritarian leader has deployed anti-democratic means to retain power?

Perhaps the afore-mentioned reserachers are "deliberately ignoring" that " comparisons of any kind to such extreme groups always, I repeat always, has the effect of making the groups analogous, of linking them together," or perhaps that is just the worry of groups whose authoritarian tendencies might become public discussion as such because of the comparison. Hence the effort of so many right wing commentators in the US to block and resist such research, or to produce "alternative" versions linking Nazis and "radical Islam" to "the left."  

In any case, it is clear that if researchers can't make analogies between authoritarian regimes and current US politics, then the entire purpose of this international enterprise, its copious research results placed in service of maintaining democracy, are just fudge. Your quarrel is not with one individual with "problems," but with the enterprise of social science itself--its ethos, methods, and applicability to current politics.

There are others in this forum who also operate in this social-scientific mode when discussing political events. They focus on policy analysis and social causation. You never hear them going on about "human scum" or explaining opponents' motives in terms of personality defects.  

[Dill]

(08-24-2021, 03:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Since you have conceded you cannot name another Muslim majority country in which those two groups are not oppressed we'll move on. 

Of course you know the point, hence your doing everything you can to avoid actually addressing my questions.  I blame Islam as it is currently practiced for this in the same way I blame Christianity as it was practiced when it was used to justify the slave trade and maltreatment of humans viewed as "lesser".  The type of behavior and rules that I've asked about can only exist in those nations because there aren't a sufficient number of people standing up and saying "no, this is not right".  Islam is used to justify this oppression, and violence in the case of drawing Muhammed, in the exact same way Christianity was used to justify the slave trade.  So, as long as Islam is allowed to be used in this fashion by a sizeable percentage of those who follow it I will continue to rightfully criticize it.  Your problem is you see valid criticism as a vicious attack.  Probably because actually acknowledging the valid criticism would be very painful for you.

Bosnia-Herzogovina?

Someone really interested in "opporession" of women and LGBTQ minorities will go beyond judging non-lberal societies for not being liberal, and will not object to examining why non-liberal elements persist in our own.

What "questions" am I supposedly avoiding?  Islam is used to justify "oppression and violence in the case of drawing Muhammed, in the exact same way Christianity was used to justify the slave trade"? Wow. Garbled. What exactly are the terms of comparison there? 

The issue between us is not whether there are some Muslim groups who practice religiously inflected violence/oppression. 

The issue is whether this should be used to characterize all or most practicing Muslims in the world, while you block social-scientific analogies between the US groups and authoritarian regimes like the Taliban or Nazis on the claim such comparison is "inherently inflammatory."  And at at time when general lack of knowledge about such societies is hindering public assessment of "what went wrong" in Afghanistan.

If you believe, as I do not, that "comparisons of any kind to such extreme groups always, I repeat always, has the effect of making the groups analogous, of linking them together," then what is the goal of such deliberate linkage between "radical" and "moderate" groups in YOUR arguments? 

"Valid criticism" doesn't address its targets as "human scum" and always has some goal beyond naming and blaming. So yes, your criticisms of "radical Islam" are indeed "viscious attack." They show no effort to go beyond selective media representations of Islam to understand the social, economic and historical determinants of current Islamic politics, let alone the differing demographic and religious composition of Muslim majority countries, comically assumed to be constant in their "oppression" of various groups, an oppression grounded in religion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Dill, you're so myopic on the topic of Islam that your refutations of its excesses are comical, bordering on farcical. That you can equate stating that Isis fighters are "human scum", which they are, to criticism of Islam as a whole shows you're not adult enough to even partake in this discussion. But, again, I will thank you for proving my points for me.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-25-2021, 07:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump withdrew 80% of US forces and few if any civilians without any conditions being met by the Taliban—except the promise not to stand in the way.

His own secretary of defense attempted to slow down the withdrawal, which was ahead of schedule and destabilizing.

But you are saying COMPLETE withdrawal would not have occurred under Trump unless, suddenly, those conditions were met?

(08-25-2021, 09:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You claimed Trump would have forced the Taliban to meet the conditions because his advisors said he would. I pointed out that Trump himself never did when he was in office and that he publicly called for his date to be honored despite conditions not being met.

Your claim was completely refuted.

Let me make clear here that I'm not trying to say what would have actually happened had Trump been in office.

What I'm pointing out is what Trump's plan/deal was because it's being claimed that what Biden did was "Trump's plan". Whether Trump actually would have followed through with his plan for complete withdrawal isn't important to the point I'm trying to make here.

Biden claimed he was tied to Trump's deal did he not?

Trump's deal noted that complete withdrawal would happen when obligations of the deal were met by the Taliban. We never got to the point of complete withdrawal with Trump, so we don't know whether or not Trump would have kept a remaining troop presence there due to the Taliban not following the deal.

What is certain here however, is that Biden is in the moment of complete withdrawal and did not adhere to the deal Trump set in place, regardless of whether or not Trump would have followed it himself. Yet, Biden claims he was "binded by the agreement"

So then why is he completing the withdrawal when the deal is clearly not being met?  Biden's not even following the deal to which he said he was bound.

Saying this was "Trump's plan" is a complete deflection to defend a complete withdrawal that never should have happened the way that it did under Biden, regardless of what Trump would have actually done once May 1st got here and he was still President.