Biden says he does not regret Afghanistan withdrawal as Taliban take over more towns

[Agema]

Or we let the country fight it out themselves and see what happens. So long as they don't start attacking other countries, which they will because they done it repeatedly throughout the last 3 decades, at which point we go in and murder everyone.

I don't think the Taliban are interested in attacking anyone else. Afghans broadly are happy to sit where they are and fight their customary enemies: other Afghans. After the heat Al-Qaida pulled on them last time, I would be surprised if the Taliban would let them operate substantially in Afghanistan again. Although that said, I think Al-Qaida has largely given up trying to kill Westerners: it's taken a look at ISIS and realised a better way forward is growing influence and power in the Islamic world.

Besides, they're probably not going to be capable of attacking anyone else. After all, this is Afghanistan we're talking about. When we say Afghanistan is ungovernable, this includes by the Taliban. They only controlled about 70-80% of it back in their pre-2001 peak. They'll have a regime in Kabul, a few loyal areas, and everywhere else they'll have to hold by force. No-one likes puritanical regimes: opposition and resistance to them are guaranteed, and such regimes will only have authority where they have troops to make it happen.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The problem with that is how do you get people out of the country? Do you think the Taliban wont deliberately attack Refuge points? Or start outright murdering the people in the streets to keep people afraid to even leave their homes? What about bombings and attacks against allied forces trying to take people to safety?

Sure let's offer refuge, but that isn't a permanent solution is it? Just have everyone move somewhere else and let the Taliban rule a wasteland is a cool idea, but not practical. Even if you could get some people out safely, the ones that don't get out will only suffer more.

So?
In a situation with no good solution, save as many people as possible.

I mean sure, the conservatives will flip on a dime going from "what a terrible situation those helpless people are in" to "we can't accept any refugees, they're dangerous", you know, like they always do, but fuck 'em. No more Thoughts And Prayers as a solution. We can help so we should help. Clearly occupying the area wasn't helping, so we go to the next thing.

 

[CriticalGaming]

So?
In a situation with no good solution, save as many people as possible.

I don't know. From what i've been seeing a lot of the Afgani's are okay with the Taliban and the people in such a panic to GTFO are the people who supported the US occupation and now that they've been chased out they know they are basically doomed if they don't also escape.

It's a situation with no easy answer and certainly no answer that a bunch of video game nerds on a video game forum are going to be able to solve for sure.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I don't know. From what i've been seeing a lot of the Afgani's are okay with the Taliban and the people in such a panic to GTFO are the people who supported the US occupation and now that they've been chased out they know they are basically doomed if they don't also escape.

It's a situation with no easy answer and certainly no answer that a bunch of video game nerds on a video game forum are going to be able to solve for sure.

"There's no easy answer" isn't an argument. Why *not* save as many people as possible.

 

[Piscian]

Idk it could end up just fine. We made a deal with this guy and I think he has very kind eyes. Well no, the former president did, it's important that we give him credit for his accomplishments.

Taliban’s Abdul Ghani Baradar is undisputed victor of a 20-year war

Return to power of movement’s co-founder embodies Afghanistan’s inability to escape history of conflict

www.theguardian.com

 

[CriticalGaming]

"There's no easy answer" isn't an argument. Why *not* save as many people as possible.

Why not indeed? Tell me how many soldiers should get shot, blown up, and tortured from capture in order to "save" people who by a lot of acounts dont want to be saved.

Isnt that how we got into all this business in the first place?

 

[gorfias]

Why not indeed? Tell me how many soldiers should get shot, blown up, and tortured from capture in order to "save" people who by a lot of acounts dont want to be saved.

Isnt that how we got into all this business in the first place?

They gave refuge to Osama, correct? We are told this was to punish Afghanistan for this. But he didn't stay there but went on to Pakistan? Did we invade them? He came from, and got his values from Saudi Arabia. We sanctioning them in any way?

Cynical me: we went to deplete our weapon reserves so that the military industrial complex would need to rebuild them and keep the cash flowing. Also, this gave real world combat experience to our troops. Is that important? Do the Chinese do this? Is staving off someone from a stone age culture relevant experience to prepare for war with people with nukes, super computers, satellites, etc.? I don't think so.

My biggest beef with Biden's speech today? Reminds me of Rober McNamara, architect of the Vietnam war who developed and sold the war, massaging stats to make it all look like a great success. 25 years later, he was selling books/touring saying he knew the Vietnam war was a mistake all along.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Why not indeed? Tell me how many soldiers should get shot, blown up, and tortured from capture in order to "save" people who by a lot of acounts dont want to be saved.

Isnt that how we got into all this business in the first place?

As predicted, we're at the "bemoan people getting hurt while denying any attempt at refuge" part of the conservative argument. EDIT:Also, pure historical revisionism: we got into this to "get" Osama Bin Laden. We repeatedly denied any proposal to do that without an occupational war. The Taliban FUCKING SURRENDERED in 2002 but we wanted the whole hog. We did not, at any point, actually give a shit about the Afghani people.

Obviously, if somebody doesn't want refuge, then they aren't a refugee. I'm saying we should take as many refugees as possible. A rearguard action can't last forever but there's no reason not to try. Give some closure to our military so they can have some solace in saving as many as they could on the way out.

 

[SilentPony]

Why not indeed? Tell me how many soldiers should get shot, blown up, and tortured from capture in order to "save" people who by a lot of acounts dont want to be saved.

Isnt that how we got into all this business in the first place?

Yeah its been 20 years. Afghanistan the Next Generation. Look at the pictures of the Taliban. Its not old men, its not the dudes who planned 9/11. Its kids. Teens. 20-somethings. Men who grew up in a post-Taliban Afghanistan, and the second the US wasn't there to force them to play nice they went right back to Taliban rule.
How much longer were we supposed to give them? Another 20 years? Was it next week? At long last was it 20 years + 7 days, and then they'd all change their mind, recant their super conservative version of Islam and see women as people?

And to be fair this was never about "fixing" or "saving" Afghanistan. That's not in the cards. Only time will make them chill out. How many centuries did it take for European Christians to stop crusading? Timeline wise we're smack in the middle of the Islamic crusades period, and it'll be centuries before the majority Islamic interpretation shifts. This was war about money. 1 trillion dollars. Someone got fucking rich off this.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

So an aspect not being talked about the refugees is how is this going to affect Afghanistan considering some of the brightest minds are leaving along with a bunch of other people. I know something similar happened with Vietnam and Cuba but there were intellectuals on the Communist side. I don't think the Taliban have the brightest Minds on their side.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I don't think the Taliban have the brightest Minds on their side.

I'm certain they have clever and intelligent people. Why shouldn't they? They may not express that cleverness and intelligence in ways we'd approve of or perhaps even be able to recognize, but that doesn't mean those qualities aren't there.

 

[meiam]

My biggest beef with Biden's speech today? Reminds me of Rober McNamara, architect of the Vietnam war who developed and sold the war, massaging stats to make it all look like a great success. 25 years later, he was selling books/touring saying he knew the Vietnam war was a mistake all along.

I think the biggest take away from the speech is:

“I know my decision will be criticized. But I would rather take that criticism than pass this on to a fifth president,” said Biden. “I am the president of the United States, the buck stops with me.”

Analysis: Defiant Biden is face of chaotic Afghan evacuation

Four presidents share responsibility for the missteps in Afghanistan that accumulated over two decades.

apnews.com

He could have just cancelled the withdrawal and kept the war going for another 4-8 years and nothing would have changed but it'd be somebody else problem and he wouldn't have to take the flak for it. I think at the end of his presidency there'll be a lot Biden could be critisized on, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

A lotta women losing a lot of freedoms now. It's a shame. Some of whom have known nothing but the freedoms and grown up with them.

There do seem people desperate to leave as some videos have shown people clinging to C-17 planes to try and escape only to fall off them when they're in the air.

 

[CM156]

I've seen two groups of people on social media actually celebrating this.
Tankies trying to spin this as an anti-imperialist victory, and Wignats (don't know if I'm allowed to use that term here, but it refers to a group of particularly deranged white nationalists) who are celebrating this as a "victory over Globohomo" (their words, not mine) and a way to keep women "in their place" (again, their words, not mine)

 

[tstorm823]

With how quickly the Taliban took over the country, I'm lead to wonder if they moved in because the US was pulling out or if the US pulled out because they knew this was about to happen. It's not as though there was much of a force left there.

 

[Seanchaidh]

With how quickly the Taliban took over the country, I'm lead to wonder if they moved in because the US was pulling out or if the US pulled out because they knew this was about to happen. It's not as though there was much of a force left there.

The latter explanation has some attractive qualities, but also some very tough questions to answer.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I've seen two groups of people on social media actually celebrating this.
Tankies trying to spin this as an anti-imperialist victory, and Wignats (don't know if I'm allowed to use that term here, but it refers to a group of particularly deranged white nationalists) who are celebrating this as a "victory over Globohomo" (their words, not mine) and a way to keep women "in their place" (again, their words, not mine)

Are you sure they said "women" and not "femoid" or "gynoid"? But yeah, that tracks.

 

[CriticalGaming]

As predicted, we're at the "bemoan people getting hurt while denying any attempt at refuge" part of the conservative argument

So you admit that soldiers should die at any cost, just to TRY and help people despite us trying to "help" these people for 20 years? Answer the question, how many of us must die to "save" them?

EDIT:Also, pure historical revisionism: we got into this to "get" Osama Bin Laden.

Could have sworn they blew up two big buildings and killed 5000 people before we went to "get" anybody.

Obviously, if somebody doesn't want refuge, then they aren't a refugee. I'm saying we should take as many refugees as possible. A rearguard action can't last forever but there's no reason not to try. Give some closure to our military so they can have some solace in saving as many as they could on the way out.

And i am for saving people if they want to be saved. But answer my question, how many of us die in order to do this? Keep in mind that by doing this you likely provoke the taliban to attack us further and also attack their own people who they don't feel follow their belief system in totality.

 

[Kwak]

Could have sworn they blew up two big buildings and killed 5000 people before we went to "get" anybody.

When did they do that?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So you admit that soldiers should die at any cost, just to TRY and help people despite us trying to "help" these people for 20 years? Answer the question, how many of us must die to "save" them?

How many of them get to die with conservatives handwringing about how bad their situation is?

Could have sworn they blew up two big buildings and killed 5000 people before we went to "get" anybody.

That wasn't the Taliban

And i am for saving people if they want to be saved. But answer my question, how many of us die in order to do this? Keep in mind that by doing this you likely provoke the taliban to attack us further and also attack their own people who they don't feel follow their belief system in totality.

Shouldn't we be helping, actively or passively, the hundreds of thousands of people who want to flee an autocratic fundamentalist theocracy, or is it "fuck em, they're Muslim"?