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

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I hope we bring as many Afgan translators in as possible. I mean many in the US complain immigrants don't know English, well these people do. the excuse on the right basically amounts to because they are Muslim there is a non-zero chance they will commit a terrorist act. Meanwhile, we have compounds of people with guns in the US that are the real-nonzero threat of terrorism.

I hope they get as many innocent people as they can out of there but the deadline is coming up

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

U.S. evacuates 48,000 from Afghanistan as Taliban calls Aug. 31 withdrawal deadline ‘red line'

President Joe Biden has previously said that he may consider extending the departure date past Aug. 31 but has yet to do so.

www.cnbc.com

we have evacuated about 48,000 from Afghanistan so far and we have about seven days to get the rest, the question is can we do it?

 

[Seanchaidh]

I contend that the appropriate response to a repressive foreign government is not to overthrow it, purge the party of ideological opponents, and then occupy the country for 10 years.

I stumbled upon something interesting

Behold, a US State Department diplomatic cable from Kabul in 1979

Cable: 1979KABUL06251_e

4. INTRODUCTION: SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN (DRA) SIXTEEN MONTHS AGO, THE LEADERSHIP AND RANK AND FILE OF THE PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF AFGHANISTAN (PDPA) -- THE KEY POLITICAL ELEMENT IN THE COUNTRY, WHOSE PRINCIPAL ROOTS LIE IN A SMALL GROUP IN THE MILITARY, A SEGMENT OF THE INTELLIGENTSIA, AND URBAN YOUTH -- HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ALTER DRASTICALLY AFGHANISTAN'S "TRADITIONAL" POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. GIVEN AFGHANISTAN'S POVERTY AND BACKWARDNESS, THIS REVOLUTIONARY REGIME'S GOALS WOULD PROBABLY, IN THEMSELVES, DESERVE GENUINE SUPPORT FROM MOST QUARTERS INTERESTED IN BETTERING THE LOT OF THE AFGHAN PEOPLE. A SERIES OF POLITICAL MISTAKES, A POLICY OF BRUTAL REPRESSION, AND CERTAIN WIDESPREAD PERCEPTIONS (WHICH THE REGIME INSISTS ARE MISPERCEPTIONS), HOWEVER, HAVE CREATED AND FED A GROWING OPPOSITION MOVEMENT WHOSE INSURGENCY OPERATIONS HAVE NIBBLED AWAY AT THE GOVERNMENT'S CAPACITY TO CONTROL THE COUNTRY OUTSIDE MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS -- ALTHOUGH THE REGIME CAN STILL RESPOND QUICKLY AND FORCEFULLY (AS DEMONSTRATED IN KABUL ON AUGUST 5) TO DIRECT CHALLENGES NEAR THE COUNTRY'S POLITICAL HEART. NONETHELESS, THE OPPOSITION, ALBEIT STILL FRAGMENTED AND GENERALLY LEADERLESS, IS WIDESPREAD AND APPARENTLY FUELED BY DEEPLY-HELD GRIEVANCES THAT HAVE CAUSED THOUSANDS OF INSURGENTS TO RISK ALL IN AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW A REGIME WHICH PROFESSES THAT IT HAS ONLY THE WELFARE OF THE AFGHAN MASSES AT HEART.

...

13. A GENUINE CHANGE IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE DRA LEADERSHIP (NOT MERELY A COSMETIC RESHUFFLING OF PORTFOLIOS) MIGHT POSSIBLY HELP PRESERVE THE REVOLUTION, BUT A NEW DRA TEAM WOULD ALSO PROBABLY HAVE TO CONVINCE THE AFGHAN POPULACE THAT "NEW APPROACHES" TO BOTH ISLAM AND MOSCOW WOULD BE UNDERTAKEN. IN THIS CONNECTION, HOWEVER, THE PRESENT LEADERSHIP IS UNLIKELY TO OPT VOLUNTARILY FOR ITS OWN DESTRUCTION, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OR SOURCE OF OUTSIDE PRESSURE. AS A CONSEQUENCE -- IND IN THE ABSENCE OF INDIVIDUAL ASSASSINATIONS, A POSSIBILITY WHICH CANNOT BE RULED OUT -- THE KHALQI LEADERS WILL PROBABLY FORGE AHEAD WITH THEIR CURRENT EFFORTS TO STAMP OUT THE OPPOSITION BY FORCE, A POLICY WHICH WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN INCREASED FIGHTING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE, HIGHER LEVELS OF SOVIET SUPPORT, AND, EVENTUALLY, POSSIBLE DIRECT SOVIET INTERVENTION TO "SAVE THE REVOLUTION."

...

16. CONVERSELY, THE AVAILABLE "MANIFESTOS" ISSUED BY SOME OPPOSITION GROUPS CALL FOR A SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM BASED ON THE "FUNDAMENTALIST" TENETS OF ISLAM, AND, THEREFORE, AN OPPOSITION-LED REGIME WOULD PROBALY NOT HAVE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REFORMS (SO NECESSARY FOR THIS BACKWARD COUNTRY) HIGH ON ITS PRIORITY LIST. THOUSANDS OF PERSONAL VENDETTAS WOULD PROBABLY BE CARRIED OUT AGAINST SURVIVING KHALQI OFFICIALS, THEREBY PROBABLY TARNISHING A POST-DRA REGIME'S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD, NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED RETRIBUTION AGAINST SOME OFFICIALS MIGHT APPEAR TO BE. AN UNFRIENDLY STANCE TOWARD THE USSR (NOT INEVITABLE, BUT CERTAINLY MORE PROBABLE GIVEN THE FORCES MOTIVATING THE CURRENT OPPOSITION) COULD HAVE DESTABLIZING RESULTS FOR THE REGION, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTIES PREVAILING IN AFGHANISTAN'S NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES. THIS EVENTUALITY, INCIDENTALLY, COULD ENTER MOSCOW'S ASSESSMENT OF HOW FAR TO GO WITH THIS KHALQI REGIME.

17. ON BALANCE, HOWEVER, OUR LARGER INTERESTS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE DRA'S EXTREMELY CLOSE TIES TO MOSCOW, THIS REGIME'S ALMOST OPEN HOSTILITY TO US, AND THE ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR IT HAS CREATED THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY, WOULD PROBABLY BE SERVED BY THE DEMISE OF THE TARAKI AND AMIN REGIME, DESPITE WHATEVER SETBACKS THIS MIGHT MEAN FOR FUTURE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REFORMS WITHIN AFGHANISTAN.

United States: this regime is good for the Afghan people
Also United States: we want them gone, send weapons to their adversaries and dedicate Rambo III to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan
Also Also United States: the government which we want destroyed might have a better chance of surviving with a change in the composition of their leadership, new approaches to Islam and Soviet Union
You: changing the composition of their leadership-- overthrowing the regime that the United States itself was targeting for destruction using religious extremist opium-traffickers-- is Soviet imperialism and of far more seriousness than what the United States was doing in Afghanistan from the other side of the world.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

John Oliver did a good video on this

 

[Agema]

The USSR were in a cold war with the United States, and the rest of the capitalist world had been openly hostile since the beginning of their existence. As survival as a socialist state is very clearly dependent on being able to stand up to the United States and other servants of global finance capital, it's hardly a ridiculous proposition that bog standard great power competition would be a matter of self-defense and not per se imperialist.

You can argue that if you like, but it passes the West exactly the same justification in return, that foreign intervention was acceptable on the grounds of self-defence. The problem I've encountered is the lopsided utilisation frqeuently employed to paint the USSR and China as some sort of victims, where in fact they were themselves aggressive, domineering and oppressive right from the start. And in the case of the USSR (Warsaw Pact), for much of the Cold War arguably more militarily powerful than the West - certainly in the key battleground of Europe.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You can argue that if you like, but it passes the West exactly the same justification in return, that foreign intervention was acceptable on the grounds of self-defence.

Maybe, maybe not. Does global capitalism actually have a right to defend itself or is it such a crime that any effort to maintain it is a crime against humanity?

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Maybe, maybe not. Does global religion rule actually have a right to defend itself or is it such a crime that any effort to maintain it is a crime against humanity?

FTFY because that's what it sounds like.

Seriously dude that is basic imperialism justification. There system is wrong so we need to show them the right way.

You are seriously arguing other countries are completely justified in dismantling a system they don't like in another country by military force even if the people don't want it as long as you personally agree with the Invaders belief. You are literally and I do mean LITERALLY using the same justification as the United States when it's Justified the war in Afghanistan. Just replace capitalism with religious rule

 

[Seanchaidh]

FTFY because that's what it sounds like.

that's very much not the same idea.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

that's very much not the same idea.

"I don't like how they run things so I'm imposing my will on you for the greater good." That is literally the main justification for imperialism and you advocated for it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

"I don't like how they run things so I'm imposing my will on you for the greater good." That is literally the main justification for imperialism and you advocated for it.

If you keep attributing things to me that I didn't write, you're going to keep winning the argument that goes on in your head. Keep it up!

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Taliban says it won't allow Afghans to reach Kabul airport as UN warns of 'credible' reports of executions

"We are asking the American please change your policy and don't encourage Afghans to leave," Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said.

www.businessinsider.com

The Taliban is now going to stop afghans from leaving the country. Only foreigners will be allowed at the airport now. There is a theory that there's a secret deal between the US and the Taliban to do this so the American government doesn't have to take in that many refugees and the Taliban doesn't lose any more people. If that's the case fuck the United States and fuck Joe Biden

 

[CM156]

Taliban says it won't allow Afghans to reach Kabul airport as UN warns of 'credible' reports of executions

"We are asking the American please change your policy and don't encourage Afghans to leave," Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said.

www.businessinsider.com

The Taliban is now going to stop afghans from leaving the country. Only foreigners will be allowed at the airport now. There is a theory that there's a secret deal between the US and the Taliban to do this so the American government doesn't have to take in that many refugees and the Taliban doesn't lose any more people. If that's the case fuck the United States and fuck Joe Biden

Well that's fucking horrible. No nation has a moral or legal right to prevent people from emigration, no matter what the costs to that nation are. But the Taliban doesn't care about either of those.

 

[Gergar12]

Taliban says it won't allow Afghans to reach Kabul airport as UN warns of 'credible' reports of executions

"We are asking the American please change your policy and don't encourage Afghans to leave," Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said.

www.businessinsider.com

The Taliban is now going to stop afghans from leaving the country. Only foreigners will be allowed at the airport now. There is a theory that there's a secret deal between the US and the Taliban to do this so the American government doesn't have to take in that many refugees and the Taliban doesn't lose any more people. If that's the case fuck the United States and fuck Joe Biden

I would not find it surprising if Biden did this since he is afraid of the 2022 primaries, and this being another Syrian refugees situation. It proves that pro-immigrant advocates have a lot of ground to cover in key swing states instead they focus on the cities on the coast, and colleges where people already agree with them instead of going into suburbs.

 

[Agema]

Maybe, maybe not. Does global capitalism actually have a right to defend itself or is it such a crime that any effort to maintain it is a crime against humanity?

Even a brief, realistic consideration of what life was like in the Eastern Bloc or Cold War China would suggest those Communist states had even less right to defend themselves. They might have ensured their populations had food and housing, but the regimes thoroughly crapped all over their people in almost all other ways. And deliberately so by government diktat, enforced by police / security services (e.g. Stasi) that make ours look like school lunch monitors.

 

[Silvanus]

Pretty sure what they had in mind was the presence of Soviet troops, which is what they got.

Yeah, okay. Similarly, if I invite an acquaintance into my house and he guts me and takes my TV, I can't complain, because I expected his presence in my home when I invited him in.

You haven't referred to a single thing that would indicate that the Parcham faction in general or Karmal in particular were kleptocratic. You've just called them that because clearly they have to be as bad in every way as the US puppet regime.

Are you generally unaware of the extreme looting that characterised Soviet occupation? (Alongside widespread rape, torture, and civilian massacre etc)

Karmal would be Nancy Pelosi in this scenario (truly the darkest timeline), not Canada. Also, it's weird that you keep mentioning "espousing non-alignment" as the reason for purges when Karmal's faction had been terrorized and murdered by the people they were purging.

It's weird that you keep characterising Soviet repression as directed solely towards Amin's faction, when we know there was broad repression of civilians and Maoists.

Not exactly an exceptional description of a military presence which, I'll remind, was requested by the Afghan government. Unlike the US military presence, which had soldiers randomly shooting people for no reason among other things.

"The US did it too, so it's okay". Your lack of concern is noted.

Karmal is not the Soviet Union.

"Karzai and Ghani are not the USA".

When he came to power, Karmal promised an end to executions; when his government set up revolutionary troikas to do the opposite of that, the Soviets protested. And then what happened? They didn't kill him. Imagine that.

They didn't kill literally everyone who did something they didn't like? Imagine! I suppose they never killed anyone, then!

The fact that you can't seem to recognize clear differences in character between what the Soviets did in Afghanistan and what the USA did in Afghanistan suggests that you have no standards whatsoever beyond cynicism toward every target of western imperial ire. The Soviets were invited by the government of Afghanistan into a messy situation in which they ended up getting their hands very dirty. That situation was made a lot more challenging because of the meddling of the CIA. The USA, on the other hand, invaded a country that wanted nothing whatsoever to do with them. They then ignored a peace offer that would have delivered the supposed target of the war, Osama Bin-Laden, and occupied the country for twenty years profiting from the opium trade (itself a result of CIA meddling during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan) and transferring fortunes to military contractors and weapons companies (their own ruling class). The Soviets suffered for their intervention in Afghanistan, were reluctant to go in the first place; the USA made any excuse to stay, lied to its people about the situation on the ground, and its ruling class suffered apparently so little that two decades later their media arms are still enthusiastically making the case for war. For feminism! Oh, and rare minerals!

The fact that you will excuse and justify military invasion, occupation and political repression when its utilised by a power with whom you have pre-existing sympathy-- even utilising identical arguments we hear from US neoliberal military apologists time and again-- suggests you have absolutely no standard other than to consider whether or not the perpetrator is anti-US in foreign policy or not.

I don't even believe your standard is related to whether the perpetrator is left-wing or not, because you've also defended rank corporatists, and justified the repression of socialists and communists... if the perpetrator is against the US in foreign policy concerns. That's the sole overriding standard.

 

[Revnak]

I too like making very long arguments about what are the acceptable conditions to invade Afghanistan because I am a very normal person.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I too like making very long arguments about what are the acceptable conditions to invade Afghanistan because I am a very normal person.

At this point it just this meme.

 

[Agema]

I too like making very long arguments about what are the acceptable conditions to invade Afghanistan because I am a very normal person.

Invading Afghanistan has been a highly popular pastime for millennia: it was an established tradition even by the time of Alexander the Great. Does anyone really need "conditions"?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Even a brief, realistic consideration of what life was like in the Eastern Bloc or Cold War China would suggest those Communist states had even less right to defend themselves.

While I wouldn't agree with this, I might not find it an absurd proposition if global capitalism had only ever had an effect on white people in the imperial core and that was all we were allowed to consider about it-- and this is very much how capitalism tends to be considered in its effects by media in imperialist countries-- but that's not the world we live in. So instead I must regard your statement as ill-considered in the extreme. Everything wrong with capitalism is compartmentalized as some particular social problem or another while any blemish on a socialist country is treated as fundamental to Marxism. We'll decry "gulags!" while the United States has by far the largest proportion of prisoners in the world. We'll snark about "bread lines" while our people starve. We'll laugh about thousands of identical soviet apartments while our people live on streets and (if lucky!) in tents. But more important than that is that capitalism is fundamentally and unavoidably about the exploitation of its working class and functions by keeping the mass of people precarious and (rightfully) terrorized of falling to a lower status and thereby having to accept more brutal exploitation, losing one's home, or being disposed of when a medical treatment is too expensive or a cop decides to perform an impromptu execution.

 

[Seanchaidh]

utilising identical arguments we hear from US neoliberal military apologists time and again

it's impossible to employ identical arguments because the conditions were different. Sometimes a string of words makes sense in one context but not another. The idea that someone could make an asinine argument for the propriety of the US invasion of Afghanistan using roughly the same words that doesn't make any sense because the relations between the entities involved aren't at all similar doesn't mean anything. "Ah, but what if I said the same thing in a different context? Wouldn't that be not at all persuasive?" is not the strong argument you apparently think it is.

Your arguments have so far depended on assuming that the US occupation and puppet government were like the Soviet intervention and its meddling in the composition of Afghan leadership. Rather than making a case for the truth of that assumption, you've simply expressed incredulity and then made inane claims about the logical consistency of my views.

"The US did it too, so it's okay". Your lack of concern is noted.

Moreso that the conduct of the Red Army is quite separate to whether employing the Soviet military is "imperialism"; when the US military shoots random people, it's usually treated as a particular issue with particular soldiers rather than an indictment of their mission. The United States gets to blame its problems on a Lynndie England; the Soviets are treated as a monolithic Slavic horde.

suggests you have absolutely no standard other than to consider whether or not the perpetrator is anti-US in foreign policy or not.

Other than the wealth of differences I noted and you continue to ignore, you mean. Defending a socialist revolution from foreign-armed reactionary rebels is totally the same as just invading a country.

"Karzai and Ghani are not the USA".

The United States didn't go into Afghanistan at the request of the Taliban to help defend it from various warlords and then elevate another faction within the Taliban; they invaded the Taliban and set up an entirely unrelated puppet government of their own. A puppet government whose officials got rich by embezzling US aid while the US claimed that everything was going great up until they left and it precipitously collapsed.

It's weird that you keep characterising Soviet repression as directed solely towards Amin's faction, when we know there was broad repression of civilians and Maoists.

You've just blithely glided over the fact that the Soviets opposed the approach taken by Karmal (and Taraki and Amin before him). But they didn't go on to remove Karmal from power after assassinating Amin, so I guess it's all on them.