1 minute ago, toolg said:

I don't know what the solution to Afghanistan is. Unfortunately this was always the situation since 2001; the Taliban will not have control as long as US is a lasting presence. But our troops were never going to stay there forever. 20 years is a blip compared to the centuries it took to make Afghanistan the way it is today. I do not want the Taliban to retake the country but it's out of my hands. I can only hope the Afghan government holds.

 

If we're sticking with the original mission, it was to decimate Al Qaeda, and we have accomplished that. The stated goal was not to completely remake the Afghan state and society.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

If we're sticking with the original mission, it was to decimate Al Qaeda, and we have accomplished that. The stated goal was not to completely remake the Afghan state and society.

Then it was never going to be a successful mission. We may defeat Al Qaeda, but the ideology that formed it in the first place remains. They will perpetually rebrand and resurface under different names:  ie. ISIS/Daesh, etc.

Just now, toolg said:

Then it was never going to be a successful mission. We may defeat Al Qaeda, but the ideology that formed it in the first place remains. They will perpetually rebrand and resurface under different names:  ie. ISIS/Daesh, etc.

We never had a chance to complete that mission and we never will.  The only way to defeat that ideology is from within, with an internal religious reformation.  There's absolutely no way for an outsider to achieve that goal.

7 minutes ago, toolg said:

Then it was never going to be a successful mission. We may defeat Al Qaeda, but the ideology that formed it in the first place remains. They will perpetually rebrand and resurface under different names:  ie. ISIS/Daesh, etc.

 

We will never "defeat" them, but we can frustrate them by targeting their presence in particular areas through covert operations in concert with our allies. Ultimately, we can reduce the threat posed by them if we reduce our interference with their way of life. We need to get out of their villages. We must stop romanticizing intervention and focus on developing and protecting the home front, because our own society is crumbling before our eyes. The military-industrial complex is so entrenched that it can be hard to imagine a way out, but we could start by using defense spending to actually focus on defense.

Beyond that, I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda sees now that they don't need to destroy us; Jan 6 showed the whole world that we are fully capable of destroying ourselves from within. They must be delighted to know that we can do the job for them. If we want to prove them wrong, we need to start looking inward for solutions to our problems, not on the other side of the world.

Right. I don't know how a military intervention was ever going to solve Afghanistan either. That's why I say I don't know what the solution is.

5 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

This b|tch just won't die, will she?

Siri, what's a neoliberal?


 

 

Let's see what Libya looks like after her push to kill al-Gaddafi. Just the run of the mill slave trading happening. 

Hilary is a garbage human 

17 minutes ago, toolg said:

Right. I don't know how a military intervention was ever going to solve Afghanistan either. That's why I say I don't know what the solution is.

There might be no solution to their interminable dysfunction, which really goes for the Middle East as a whole, but the old neoconservative line of, "They hate us for our freedom!" is pure jingoism built on a simple-minded point of view that is completely lacking in national self-awareness. They hate us for our presence in their lives, our disrespect for their cuture, and our interference with their societal development. Most of all, everyday Muslims hate us for destroying their homes, burning their villages, and turning their kids to skeletons. If they don't find extremist propaganda believable in these circumstances, many of them at least think to themselves that we are no better than the extremists. We are just terrorists in our own right to them. The solution is to GTFO.

31 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

There might be no solution to their interminable dysfunction, which really goes for the Middle East as a whole, but the old neoconservative line of, "They hate us for our freedom!" is pure jingoism built on a simple-minded point of view that is completely lacking in national self-awareness. They hate us for our presence in their lives, our disrespect for their cuture, and our interference with their societal development. Most of all, everyday Muslims hate us for destroying their homes, burning their villages, and turning their kids to skeletons. If they don't find extremist propaganda believable in these circumstances, many of them at least think to themselves that we are no better than the extremists. We are just terrorists in our own right to them. The solution is to GTFO.

Eh...they also hate us because we treat women as full citizens, don't worship Allah and allow people freedom to live a life not denominated by a literal interpretation of a religious text. The simple fact is their views are incompatible with our way of life, and they believe they are supposed to defeat us in the name of Allah and dominate the globe.

So, yeah, they hate us because we are there. But...the zealots hate us for who we are.

10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Eh...they also hate us because we treat women as full citizens, don't worship Allah and allow people freedom to live a life not denominated by a literal interpretation of a religious text. The simple fact is their views are incompatible with our way of life, and they believe they are supposed to defeat us in the name of Allah and dominate the globe.

So, yeah, they hate us because we are there. But...the zealots hate us for who we are.

 

They might hate what we stand for in any case, but I feel like they wouldn't have much of a logic in bringing the fight to our shores unless we were actively invading there's, though. If we were really just doing our own thing and keeping to ourselves, these extremists could rant and rave but would probably have a hard time convincing their populations that we are a direct threat. We were even originally allied with these people back in the days of the mujaheddin and are at least partially responsible for their rise to power. The sense now is that we used them and sold them out. I find a hard time believing that they're really that caught up in simply the way we're living 12,000 miles away. If that were the case, why have we only recently had to contend with an Islamist threat? Why didn't they hate us so much to take the fight to us in the 1800s and most of the 20th century? Maybe they hated us, but I think the motivation to actually come over here is largely a product of the postcolonial world.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

They might hate what we stand for in any case, but I feel like they wouldn't have much of a logic in bringing the fight to our shores unless we were actively invading there's, though. If we were really just doing our own thing and keeping to ourselves, these extremists could rant and rave but would probably have a hard time convincing their populations that we are a direct threat. I find a hard time believing that they're really that caught up in simply the way we're living 12,000 miles away. If that were the case, why have we only recently had to contend with an Islamist threat? Why didn't they hate us so much to take the fight to us in the 1800s and most of the 20th century? Maybe they hated us, but I think the motivation to actually come over here is largely a product of the postcolonial world.

The zealots will always hate us. The differences are : (i) advances in their capabilities to launch attacks, (ii) the ability to radicalize people in the west through internet/social media and (iii) no more Soviets to fight. The idea that ISIS or Al-Qaeda won't attack us if we simply leave the Middle East is naive. Now, I agree that not being there will reduce their ability to recruit followers -- people who have experienced the negative consequences of American military might are more easily recruited.

But let's say the truth outloud (the one liberals won't): this is a clash of civilizations, and ours is just better. Respect for women = better. Freedom of religion = better. Saying things like they hate us because we "don't respect their culture" -- well, yeah, I don't respect a culture that subjugates women and non-believers. Some things are just wrong. 

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The zealots will always hate us. The differences are : (i) advances in their capabilities to launch attacks, (ii) the ability to radicalize people in the west through internet/social media and (iii) no more Soviets to fight. The idea that ISIS or Al-Qaeda won't attack us if we simply leave the Middle East is naive. Now, I agree that not being there will reduce their ability to recruit followers -- people who have experienced the negative consequences of American military might are more easily recruited.

 

It's interesting, though, that they didn't have much of a problem with us when we were actively arming and funding their militias in the 70s and 80s. A lot of their rise to power is on us.

 

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Saying things like they hate us because we "don't respect their culture" -- well, yeah, I don't respect a culture that subjugates women and non-believers. Some things are just wrong. 

 

On the one hand, I agree, but on the other hand, two things: 1) You can not respect their culture but realize that we can't do much to change it and might as well just let them fight it out amongst themselves. 2) I think you have to separate the extremists from the average Muslim. I'm not sure that the average Muslim is any less of a bigot or chauvinist than a lot of Christians are here. There are a lot of Evangelicals that I might consider bigoted or predjudicial, but I don't consider them terrorists and can be perfectly fine living my life while letting them live theirs. This is one of those situations where the overall community is often unfairly demonized by associating it with its worst actors.

7 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

It's interesting, though, that they didn't have much of a problem with us when we were actively arming and funding their militias in the 70s and 80s. A lot of their rise to power is on us.

 

 

On the one hand, I agree, but on the other hand, two things: 1) You can not respect their culture but realize that we can't do much to change it and might as well just let them fight it out amongst themselves. 2) I think you have to separate the extremists from the average Muslim. I'm not sure that the average Muslim is any less of a bigot or chauvinist than a lot of Christians are here. There are a lot of Evangelicals that I might consider bigoted or predjudicial, but I don't consider them terrorists and can be perfectly fine living my life while letting them live theirs. This is one of those situations where the overall community is often unfairly demonized by associating it with its worst actors.

To the first point, they were fighting Soviet invaders. The fall of the Soviet Union coincides with the rise in terrorist attacks on the US.

On the bold part, you are just wrong. Muslims in America are very different than those in the rest of the world. There is no state in the USA that doesn't allow women to vote, or drive, or punishes a married woman for adultery if they are raped. All of this happens in the Muslim world and the citizens there don't change it. When they actually have elections, they elect the religious extremists. It's why we should never have removed guys like Saddam and Qadaffi -- the results of elections in the Muslim world are terrifying.

There is no equivalence. One society is just better, and it is ours.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

To the first point, they were fighting Soviet invaders. The fall of the Soviet Union coincides with the rise in terrorist attacks on the US.

On the bold part, you are just wrong. Muslims in America are very different than those in the rest of the world. There is no state in the USA that doesn't allow women to vote, or drive, or punishes a married woman for adultery if they are raped. All of this happens in the Muslim world and the citizens there don't change it. 

There is no equivalence. One society is just better, and it is ours.

Only until TEW is elected governor of Alabama.

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

We are not "occupying" Germany; we have troops stationed there, which is part-and-parcel to backing up any NATO ally. Our military presence there is according to an official pact. We're also culturally similar to Germans. The situations are totally different from a geopolitical and cultural perspective. Part of the problem is that we are always seen as invaders and imperialists when we try to structure the internal affairs of faraway lands. Look at Vietnam. The Vietnamese people never fully got behind the American presence because, ultimately, we were foreigners subverting their self-determination. We looked little better than the Vietcong militias who were terrorizing their villages, but at the end of the day, at least the VC looked like them, spoke their language, and understood their values. The communists were able to successfully portray us as new-age colonizers, and it effectively sapped any real chance of enlisting the population's support. You have a similar situation in Afghanistan. Our presence there is a windfall to terrorists, because it plays into their narrative of the West as a bunch of arrogant foreigners trying to destroy their way of life. Our withdrawal would remove a huge source of legitimacy for their extremist propaganda.

 

 

This, ALL of this. Fareed Zakaria touched on the bolded part this weekend. He's pretty much the only guy on CNN that I seriously listen to. GPS is a must-watch for me with my Sunday morning coffee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ten-years-later-islamist-terrorism-isnt-the-threat-it-used-to-be/2021/04/29/deb88256-a91c-11eb-bca5-048b2759a489_story.html

 

We're culturally similar to them now because we've been there for over 50 years  Afghanistan is more culturally similar to us now in the cities than they were 20 years ago. Give it another 30 and they'll be gorging themselves on Big Macs and Budweiser. We've had pacts with Afghan government as well, and they aren't crazy about us leaving. They're only hope is that the Talliban won't overthrow them, which they almost certainly will. So your argument that "we had a pact with Germany" doesn't really hold water here. If we offered the Afghan government a pact to stay, they would take it in a heartbeat. This is absolutely nothing like Vietnam. You're comparing apples and station wagons. In Vietnam we intervened in a civil war on the side of a tyrannical dictator. 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2021-05-04/ashraf-ghani-afghanistan-moment-risk-and-opportunity

Fareed Zakaria is intelligent but has consistently turned a blind eye to Islamo-fascism.  Even if he were correct, which he's not, there are more national security risks at stake than just Islamic terrorism. We've got the Soviets to deal with and their allies in Iran and Syria. 

 

Wow. No wonder he's not on television very much.

28 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

To the first point, they were fighting Soviet invaders. The fall of the Soviet Union coincides with the rise in terrorist attacks on the US.

 

It does. I don't know the most about this period/region of history, but along with the collapse of the USSR, I believe there was some sense of "betrayal" among Islamic rebels vis-a-vis the United States after the CIA spent years supporting them. We definitely made the situation worse by intervening.

 

33 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

There is no equivalence. One society is just better, and it is ours.

 

I agree, I just don't think "defeating" them is realistic, and if we stopped meddling in their affairs, they'd have a lot less clout in arguing for jihad against the US.

37 minutes ago, Gannan said:

We're culturally similar to them now because we've been there for over 50 years 

 

Yeah, I'm sure that is has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have a large population of ethnically German people and thus a strong influence of German culture, not to mention the broad cultural and political similarities between Germany, Western Europe, and by extension, the United States. Our demographics make our cultures inextricably linked.

 

37 minutes ago, Gannan said:

We're culturally similar to them now because we've been there for over 50 years  Afghanistan is more culturally similar to us now in the cities than they were 20 years ago. Give it another 30 and they'll be gorging themselves on Big Macs and Budweiser. We've had pacts with Afghan government as well, and they aren't crazy about us leaving. They're only hope is that the Talliban won't overthrow them, which they almost certainly will. So your argument that "we had a pact with Germany" doesn't really hold water here. If we offered the Afghan government a pact to stay, they would take it in a heartbeat.

The Afghan government  might want us there (Of course they do, we're the reason they're in power!) but I'm not so sure that a majority or even close to a majority of Afghanis want us there, no matter what side they're on.

 

37 minutes ago, Gannan said:

This is absolutely nothing like Vietnam. You're comparing apples and station wagons. In Vietnam we intervened in a civil war on the side of a tyrannical dictator. 

 

It's similar to Vietnam in that we are fighting a homegrown insurgency by trying to project ourselves as saviors, but really, we're just seen as another group of invaders.  You need to take the 30,000-ft. view. The dynamics are very similar in that regard.

10 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

Wow. No wonder he's not on television very much.

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure that is has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have a large population of ethnically German people and thus a strong influence of German culture, not to mention the broad cultural and political similarities between Germany, Western Europe, and by extension, the United States. Our demographics make our cultures inextricably linked.

 

The Afghan government  might want us there (Of course they do, they're the reason we're there!), but I'm not so sure that a majority of Afghanis want us there, no matter what side they're on.

 

It's similar to Vietnam in that we are fighting a homegrown insurgency by trying to project ourselves as saviors, but really, we're just seen as another group of invaders.  You need to take the 30,000-ft. view. The dynamics are very similar in that regard.

NSDAP Germany was culturally very different than us in just about every way. Same with Japan. They were basically a death cult worshipping Hirohito like a god. We made them into what they are now. Your argument is insane. 

The point has been made many times, Afghanistan is divided between the rural and urban areas. The people in the urban areas, aka civilization, absolutely want us there. However, if the solution were to leave it up to a vote for the Afghan people to decide, I'd be fine with that. However, if they voted to keep us there I doubt it would change your mind.

There is no homegrown insurgency nor was there one in Vietnam either if you want to get technical. The taliban is the ousted government, that is still in power in remote areas. Its not like you have radicalized teenagers in Kabul who decide on a mass scale to start attacking troops in city streets there on a daily basis (which is what an insurgency looks like).  Your opinion is that we are seen as a group of invaders. You have nothing concrete to base that opinion on. All I was saying is that there are a ton of Afghans telling the news media and anyone who will listen that they are better off with us there. Are the a vocal minority? Possible, but to dismiss them entirely and say that "we see ourselves as saviors and Afghans  see us as invaders" is nothing more than an opinion, not a statement of fact. 

Biden's trade rep is advocating for waiving patent rights on the vaccines. Not a fan of this at all.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Biden's trade rep is advocating for waiving patent rights on the vaccines. Not a fan of this at all.

Complete insanity. If I were Moderna/Pfizer/JnJ, I'd stop producing doses if they go through with this. 

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Complete insanity. If I were Moderna/Pfizer/JnJ, I'd stop producing doses if they go through with this. 

Aside from the obvious concerns of discouraging future research and innovation, it won't even F'ing matter to help get more doses to countries without supply because the bottlenecks in production have literally nothing to do with IP or limited production capacity, and everything to do with a lack of raw materials. This won't change anytime soon either. Beyond stupid.

24 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Your opinion is that we are seen as a group of invaders. You have nothing concrete to base that opinion on. All I was saying is that there are a ton of Afghans telling the news media and anyone who will listen that they are better off with us there. Are the a vocal minority? Possible, but to dismiss them entirely and say that "we see ourselves as saviors and Afghans  see us as invaders" is nothing more than an opinion, not a statement of fact. 

 They've been polled on the matter, and roughly half of them want us out. The Taliban portrays us as invaders, and a lot buy into the notion, because we are.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Aside from the obvious concerns of discouraging future research and innovation, it won't even F'ing matter to help get more doses to countries without supply because the bottlenecks in production have literally nothing to do with IP, and everything to do with a lack of raw materials. This won't change anytime soon either. Beyond stupid.

This really can't be overstated as a disastrous consequence. If the government can simply steal any IP for something it calls an "emergency," no one will ever spend real R&D money again.