17 Aug 21
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidI’m not sure what to make of the decision to pull out in this manner.
yet you defend biden allowing them to do it… a little wishy washy there arent you?
Ultimately, the West had to pull out at some point. Say you wait another 5 years, the same situation would occur.
What other, realistic, way to pull out is there?
Obviously, I opposed them going in in the first place. But once you’re in, it becomes messy to see what should be done next.
The Taliban and the Mujahadeen before them are a tough bunch. Wasn’t it the secular Afghan government that asked the Russians to help out in the 80’s?
The US fed the religious nuts weapons. The Russians pulled out.
The US (and the West) are now in that exact same situation.
And the Taliban are really quite insufferable: religious zealots and totally mad.
And very unforgiving and harsh.
After invading a country, right or wrongly so, I would assume that one has responsibilities towards the people.
Handing people over to the Taliban doesn’t seem the gentlemanly thing to do.
But what then?
Wrongly and unwisely invaded.
20 year occupation.
No clear goals.
Wrongly handing over a population to a group of what we consider criminals (anti-woman, mistreatment of girls, public executions and mutulations, non-democratic).
What would you do?
17 Aug 21
@shavixmir saidWell, given the American response, I'd say one bomb taking out a known terrorist who killed thousands on 9/11 is certainly better than the thousands of bombs the US has dropped in Afghanistan. One compound of Al-Qaeda versus 13,000 innocent Pashtuns sounds like a bargain.
No, you can’t just drop bombs on a soverign nation, just because you suspect there’s a suspected criminal there.
17 Aug 21
@suzianne saidBoth responses are equally wrong.
Well, given the American response, I'd say one bomb taking out a known terrorist who killed thousands on 9/11 is certainly better than the thousands of bombs the US has dropped in Afghanistan. One compound of Al-Qaeda versus 13,000 innocent Pashtuns sounds like a bargain.
However, your solution was impossible, because nobody knew where Bin Laden was.
17 Aug 21
@shavixmir saidWhere is it written in stone that we had to pull out? So let's say we kept 5,000 soldiers stationed there for 20 more years to help the government keep the Taliban at bay? Why is that a bad thing? Countries that have the power to stop murder and oppression have every legitimate right to do so. The French probably saved 20,000 people by Opération Turquoise in Rwanda (and still got ripped for it at home and abroad). That's a GOOD thing. If you can stop the Taliban from subjugating the people and killing the dissenters (including many women, of course), then I don't see why you don't do it.
I’m not sure what to make of the decision to pull out in this manner.
Ultimately, the West had to pull out at some point. Say you wait another 5 years, the same situation would occur.
What other, realistic, way to pull out is there?
Obviously, I opposed them going in in the first place. But once you’re in, it becomes messy to see what should be done next.
The Tali ...[text shortened]... an, mistreatment of girls, public executions and mutulations, non-democratic).
What would you do?
17 Aug 21
@sh76 saidSurely by that logic the US should never have withdrawn from Vietnam.
Where is it written in stone that we had to pull out? So let's say we kept 5,000 soldiers stationed there for 20 more years to help the government keep the Taliban at bay? Why is that a bad thing? Countries that have the power to stop murder and oppression have every legitimate right to do so. The French probably saved 20,000 people by Opération Turquoise in Rwanda (and still go ...[text shortened]... and killing the dissenters (including many women, of course), then I don't see why you don't do it.
17 Aug 21
@kmax87 saidBy that logic, we should invade and occupy indefinitely about half the world.
Surely by that logic the US should never have withdrawn from Vietnam.
17 Aug 21
@sh76 saidAmericans are in S Korea with no end date in sight.
Where is it written in stone that we had to pull out? So let's say we kept 5,000 soldiers stationed there for 20 more years to help the government keep the Taliban at bay? Why is that a bad thing? Countries that have the power to stop murder and oppression have every legitimate right to do so. The French probably saved 20,000 people by Opération Turquoise in Rwanda (and still go ...[text shortened]... and killing the dissenters (including many women, of course), then I don't see why you don't do it.
There is a difference I suppose. A country friendly to the US.
And probably contributing to the costs.
But I figured someone would eventually bring that up.
17 Aug 21
@mghrn55 saidAnd Germany, Japan and a dozen others, for that matter.
Americans are in S Korea with no end date in sight.
There is a difference I suppose. A country friendly to the US.
And probably contributing to the costs.
But I figured someone would eventually bring that up.
Granted, we probably don't need the ones in Germany any more, but the US made a conscious post-war decision to keep military bases in various spots in the world to prevent and react to future problems.
That's not inherently imperialism and not inherently bad.
17 Aug 21
@kmax87 saidLike everything else in foreign policy, it's a balancing test.
Surely by that logic the US should never have withdrawn from Vietnam.
If the good we were doing in Vietnam was outweighed by the costs, the withdrawing was the correct decision.
You can't just do the "by that logic..." with these issues; they are quite subtle and sophisticated case-by-case basis calculations.
@sh76 saidUh… yeah… I think that pretty much fits the definition of imperialism…
And Germany, Japan and a dozen others, for that matter.
Granted, we probably don't need the ones in Germany any more, but the US made a conscious post-war decision to keep military bases in various spots in the world to prevent and react to future problems.
That's not inherently imperialism and not inherently bad.
17 Aug 21
@sh76 saidWell maybe recognising that Afghanistan would continue to be a narco-state might have given the analysts in the previous administration cause to consider leaving the place the hell alone. The same analysis no doubt continues under team Biden and after 20 years of American influence trying and failing to change the Afghani heart from a Narco-Terrorist fiefdom to a fledgeling democracy, the bean counters have probably underlined the whole situation and said enough!
Like everything else in foreign policy, it's a balancing test.
If the good we were doing in Vietnam was outweighed by the costs, the withdrawing was the correct decision.
You can't just do the "by that logic..." with these issues; they are quite subtle and sophisticated case-by-case basis calculations.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147477
17 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidwe do
By that logic, we should invade and occupy indefinitely about half the world.
@shavixmir
It would be imperialism if we were demanding, say, taxes from the governments we occupy. We are basically just sitting there waiting for some bad actors to start shooting. Sounds good anyway🙂
17 Aug 21
@shavixmir said"Imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas."
Uh… yeah… I think that pretty much fits the definition of imperialism…
https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism
If you're there to keep peace and protect the people by holding down adherents to fundamentally evil ideology (NOT Islam - I mean the brand of Islam and militancy subscribed to by the Taliban), that's not imperialism.
The British landing as Sword Beach weren't imperialists. Or if they were, you're defining imperialism out of being something bad.
@sh76 saidGee, every Empire the world has ever seen should have just claimed they were there to "keep peace and protect the people by holding down adherents to fundamentally evil ideology" (most did in recent times) and everything would have been hunky dory.
"Imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism
If you're there to keep peace and protect the people by holding down adherents to fundamentally evil ideology (NOT Islam - I mean the brand ...[text shortened]... Beach weren't imperialists. Or if they were, you're defining imperialism out of being something bad.
EDIT: LBJ: “the United States must intervene to stop the bloodshed and to see a freely elected, non-Communist government take power.” https://prde.upress.virginia.edu/content/Vietnam
Sh would have brought it, hook, line and sinker.