Biden says he does not regret Afghanistan withdrawal as Taliban take over more towns
- Thread starter Dwarvenhobble
- Start date
Vaush is a Dirtbag Left which started with the being pro-The Event That Shall Not Be Named
Having a hot take on women is pretty standard for them
Id say its worse. It's like releasing these leaders back during the battle of the bulge
Actually not really. The Dirtbag left come from I think it's the Chappo Trap House subreddit and podcast. It's not related to The Event That Shall Not Be Named. It's just people who want to push leftwing ideas but be absolute scumbags doing it.
For some kind of example it's the Left Wing version of the trend / thing that went on for a while of "Internet Blood Sports" which was anything goes there are no boundaries or off limit topics arguments between lets charitably say trolls and internet rabble rousers. The point of them wasn't to debate the points so much and destroy your opponent or embarrass them and cause reputational damage or upset them enough to quit.
Thus Vaush and others don't have a consistent position and will take whatever position is necessary to try and beat an opponent in the public opinion, they're not playing to sense they're playing to the masses. E.G. "Every corporation should or a co-operative owned by the workers with them having a share in it" But then it's Except Vaush inc where the people Vaush employs or pays don't get a % cut of the earnings from his channel just a standard wage only at market value because it's a capitalist society so why should Vaush actually apply his own principals to his own business dealing because he's saying the right things isn't he? or some such nonsense.
An absurd comparison. The Liberation of Saigon was a good thing.
For starters to meet Nato requirements. The mess that the U.S. made of Afghanistan and Iraq has direct consequences for Europe because of the millions of refugees fleeing those countries. This has a large potential to overwhelm the continent like we have seen in 2015. Yet there is very little Nato could actually accomplish in Iraq or Syria to mitigate this. Well, nothing really. They had to leave it to the Russians. Which is another segway into a serious security threat as Russia continues to provoke Europe's outer borders with incursions into Ukraine and complete takeovers of countries like Crimea or the way they 'restored' Belarus. You can be sure countries in the Baltics are shitting bricks. Will Nato still be there to defend them if Russia tries to do something? Russia is already prodding Nato response times in my own country for example by violating air space. If the budget and aspirations sink any lower it will definitely send the message that Nato is no longer up to the task.
Longer term there is also the strategic rivalry with China and the instability and conflict climate change and diminishing natural resources will cause. I'm not saying half the budget should go to the military but a meager 2% should be the absolute minimum.
It is not actually a requirement, at best it is a guideline. And when not threatened, it would be reasonable to reduce military spending. In fact, most would have assumed that the US would do so as well. But no, instead they start unnecessary wars.
Neither Syria nor Iraq are the buissness of the Nato. The Nato is a purely defensive pact, not some kind of world police and most European countries don't think of the middle east as their sphere of influence or even a place where they want to project military power. "You should invest more in the military to be able to take part in this quagmire" is a non-starter. Those Europeans wo are there, are mostly only there as a favor to the US.
The Nato has no responsibility to protect Belarus or the Ukraine. Those are not allies. The Nato would protect the Baltics. And it would be more than strong enough to do so even without the US and even with far less than 2% military spending.
The main reason to still want the US keeping the defense promise is that if one country reneges on it, others could find reasons as well. That is what the Baltics really fear. If the US (with the strongest military in the world and ridiculous projection ability) doesn't want to come, why should Canada or Portugal feel compelled to come ? If Portugal doesn't come, why should Spain ? If at the end only countries are reliable that are directly threatened by Russia, then the Nato is worthless as defense pact. The other reason to rely on the US is the promise to use nukes to retaliate if Russia were to use nukes first.
But none of that requires the US to overspend that much in military or the Nato countries to increase military spending. Russia is not that strong.
Honestly, Russia committing in Syria makes Eastern Europe feel more safe, not less. It is expensive, binds troops and leads to additional vulnerabilities should a Nato-Russia conflict really happen. It also keeps the increasinly unreliable Turkey in line to have conflicts of interest with Russia there.
There is no strategic rivalry to speak off between most of Europe and China. And there is no willingness or reason to go to war with China. If the US starts a war with China (over Taiwan or whatever), it is on its own. Nato is neither obliged nor interested in helping unless China first attacks the US proper. Which it will not do. The Nato does not guarantee any of the countries threatened by China.
But we need these wars to continue the process of accumulation in the face of the declining rate of profit.
How are they not threatened? When the U.S. left Iraq after the mess they created there the war spilled over into Syria and created the ISIS caliphate that not only overwhelmed the region and Europe with millions of refugees but also caused a wave of terrorism in particularly France. Nato is helpess as a first line of defense to stop the threats where they emerge but instead had to leave it to Russia to put an end to the Syrian conflict. This is not about starting ''unnecessary wars'' but rather having the means and aspiration to provide the bare minimum for Europe's security interests.
Nato has tried to adapt itself to the more amorphous threats of the 21st century. Why would it exist at all if by your definition it only suits an outdated purpose of an era that ended more than three decades ago? Fact is that there is no other instution that represent trans-European security interests other than Nato. That is exactly the complaint of the U.S. that there are too many European freeriders not contributing their share of 2%. Individual countries can do very little if anything at all which is why Nato didn't went the same way as the Warschaupact. I agree that Nato blindly follows the U.S. but that is also because they are the biggest contributor. The biggest threat for European countries however isn't the immediate U.S. instigated ''quagmire'' itself but rather the aftermath when the U.S. hastily pulls out and Europe is faced with a refugee crisis and waves of terrorism. Unfortunately Europe isn't separated from these quagmires by an Atlantic ocean. They will suffer the consequences of the conflicts the U.S. started whether they want to or not. As such, they need to formulate their own aspiration and strategic vision to mitigate this fallout which they continuously fail to do by leaning too much on the U.S.
No direct responsibility indeed but both Belarus and Ukraine border directly on the European Union so Russian interference in those countries definitely impact Europe's periphery. A Dutch airliner for example with over 200 Dutch tourists were shot down and killed by a Russian surface-to-air missile in eastern Ukraine. A country that by the way was promised E.U.-membership in the future which was now lost completely into Russia's sphere of influence similarly as Belarus with which the E.U. had long lasting economic ties. How does this reflect back on Nato? As unable to mitigate any of Russia's aggression who in it's turn continue to push how far it can go testing Nato further. The populations of Germany and France for example don't even believe article 5 of Nato(that an attack against one is an attack against all) should be executed at all costs so it makes the fears of the Baltics more than warranted.
Russia might not be the richest country but it's very active and assertive with a lot of experience in international security and with probably the biggest contribution to cyber warfare. Yet Nato provides very little to counterbalance this. It's a lot more nuanced and complex than just ''who has the most amount of nukes''.
The reason the Russians interfered to put Assad firmly back in power were ofcourse because they feared the conflict would spill over into Central Asia as well with countries in the caucusus already being among the biggest suppliers of ISIS troops. With this they prevented the refugee crisis and wave of terrorism that overwhelmed Europe. For Russia it was mostly in and out with air strikes against al-Nusra and ISIS and covert deployment of Wagner mercenaries. The only conflict Russia had with Turkey was when they shot down a Russian jet but relations since then have already recovered. I'd say Turkey tries to provoke the E.U much more with it's military vessels in front of the greek coast and their violation of Greek air space over a couple of disputed rocks.
China taking center stage will inevatibly lead to competing interests. Even Nato already concluded as such:
''Q: Should we see China as a strategic competitor? Should we try to identify more particular types of actions for our new security architecture, for NATO to become more global?
Answer of Jaap De Hoop Scheffer:
The situation as we have seen it since the end of the Second World War, with the United States and Canada in full solidarity with Europe, is historically very special. What is new is that when you look at Biden’s agenda you see that the transatlantic relationship is not the first priority, but the first priority of the Biden administration is China. We should no longer use the expression “rising China”, as China has already risen. China is a superpower. To face China, we need allies in the Asian area and NATO has such partnerships with Australia, New Zeeland, Japan, and others.
There is a very specific security dimension that NATO has to handle. We need to define what China is, to realize which are China’s interests and wishes, as they have different strategies and means: spreading “democracy” in Hong Kong, bullying Australia and other countries from South and East Asia and Oceania, not respecting human rights.''
It is effectively inconcievable Russia would seriously attack the Baltics. I think it has long since accepted they are gone from its sphere of influence. But Belarus and Ukraine, those it really wants - either as allies or neutral buffer states.
Frankly, the EU should be able to look after the Baltic States against Russia without NATO - just as soon as its gets its act together militarily. The EU combined already has a military much larger than Russia's, with much less reliance on conscripts, and most of it is better equipped, too. The Baltic states more need to be wary than fearful.
Wrong: the EU has clear treaty obligations for mutual self-defence. What it does not really have is a well-developed organisational structure to run it - no doubt in part because NATO effectively already provided that function. However, the EU has been ramping up military co-ordination over the last few years and will continue to do so. I think everyone's recognised that the USA may become an increasingly unreliable partner, especially with Trump overtly making threats against NATO's existence, and this will have driven the EU's desire to set up parallel systems to NATO for itself.
Bluntly, since the break-up of the USSR NATO has represented US interests more than it has European. They're the major paymasters, so okay. But when Americans make complaints about European freeloaders, they would be wise to remember how much NATO does for the USA, and that without NATO they'd be doing the same entirely on their own.
The military can't do much against terrorism and can do even less for handling refugee. No need to increase military spending for this.
And if your idea is "conquering regeions to prevent refugees to come from there", well, that is not something Europeans believe in or want to try.
True, but they are still not allies or part of Nato. If individual countries would want to help Belarus or Ukraine in a war against Russia for geopolitical reasons, they are free to do so, but Nato as such won't.
Art 5 is the only reason Nato exists. A mutual defense treaty is all most countries want, nothing beyond that.
There are Turkish sponsored groups directly opposing Assad and the Turkish Idea to make northern Syria a Turkish controlled buffer zone. That is where problems with Russia in that conflict come from.
Last edited:
Meh. Hollow words. I've been reading about ''E.U. battle groups'' or otherwise collaborative military efforts for decades now but nothing ever comes of it or is very limited in scope. Remember these are guys who hold meetings over where the next meeting should take place and can't even agree on that. No, Nato is the best the E.U. got for now and the foreseeable future. They made some improvements, like Nato-QRF for example.
The military can definitely prevent a conflict from further escalating. ISIS for example wouldn't have emerged if military efforts could have prevented the civil war in Iraq from spilling over into Syria. The U.S./E.U./Nato refused because they didn't want to support Assad but by doing nothing the situation escalated which gave rise to ISIS and the millions of refugees and terrorist attacks in Europe directly related to the caliphate. Without Russia there still would not have been an end to this because they did what unfortunately had to be done which is restore Assad back into power.
The E.U. is itself a transnationalist organization so it makes zero sense why individual countries would defend it's geographic integrity on it's own. The E.U. exist in part because individual countries are unable or ineffective to deal with transnational threats. That is why their security interests are represented by a 'common value' multinational organization such as Nato. You won't make it very far in international relations unless you're either a superpower or part of a powerful economic block. That is why Russia's interference in Belarus and Ukraine and their annexation of Crimea undermines Nato's/E.U. authority so much; they knew it would provoke Nato but they didn't give a shit because they knew they wouldn't follow through on any 'warnings' anyway.
On paper yes but in practice no. No European would want to risk a war with Russia over the Baltics. Similarly as they didn't care about Ukraine, Belarus or Crimea.
Turkish policy in the region is solely intended to prevent an independent Kurdistan and with the U.S.'s retreat from Iraq and their abandoning of the Kurdish fighters who fought against ISIS they have very little to fear that this would ever materialize. No surprise relations with Russia improved after this as well.
Firstly, the slow development is partly a reflection of the lack of need: NATO already exists, and there is no particularly serious threat to deal with. Frankly, I suspect if NATO were dissolved tomorrow, chances are the EU would simply hire its EU staff - with their knowledge, insights, organisational understanding etc. - and use them to implement an EU equivalent.
Under the hood, there's also a push towards harmonisation of equipment and systems, thus moving disparate militaries closer together for better co-ordination.
Even in terms of the UK, one might talk a lot about the UK joining military operations with the USA, but the closest military relationship the UK had in day-to-day workings, sharing expertise, joint exercises etc. was actually with France. And quite likely still is.
But Ukraine or Belarus are not part of it. Defending them is not "defending the geographical integrity of the EU". It is instead "Making sure a buffer state stays a buffer state" and that is not what EU countries have signed up for. The only thing to do that would be another "coalition of the willing", not an EU operation or a Nato operation.
That is the difference to the baltics.
So to shock to absolutely no one, and I do mean no one they have stated the system is not going to be a democracy. So the government is definitely going to be worse than Irans which at least has small representation.
My only question is why they waited this long to say this? It's not like we thought it was going to be anything else.
To be fair, they probably didn't think they needed to: I doubt anyone was confused what their stance would be.
I suspect that while there won't be any democratic decision making there will be a council responsible for consulting the opinions of the population on policy decisions that are not inherently covered by Sharia, although this probably won't be elected and will only be able to advise Hibatullah Akhundzada who is the leader of the Taliban and therefore the de facto absolute Emir of Afghanistan. The Quran strongly advocates the principle of Shura, which means that Muslims should resolve matters between each other by consultation and consensus, which is interpreted differently by different islamist states and organisations. Some take consultation from through advisory councils, others only through internal bureaucracy, and some through limited democracy under the control of wholly Islamist executives and courts.
Twitter has confirmed that the Taliban will still be allowed on the platform
nypost.com
Twitter which has banned countless people for even so much as being slightly too right leaning, apparently is okay with the "death to america" people because they are saying it in a strangely friendly way.
Twitter says Taliban can stay on platform if they obey rules
In a statement, Twitter ducked the question of whether it would bar representatives of the Taliban’s Islamic fundamentalist government from getting their message out.
nypost.com
Twitter which has banned countless people for even so much as being slightly too right leaning, apparently is okay with the "death to america" people because they are saying it in a strangely friendly way.