TTLG|Jukebox|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long with Biden be president?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term

    9 36.00%
  • 2 Terms

    6 24.00%
  • Impeachment

    2 8.00%
  • Incapacitated

    8 32.00%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 77

Thread: Biden

  1. #26
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Perhaps it was because of the unassailable logic found in this tweet, Starker?






    Sad Post Script: 3,400 people went "YEAH, Baby!" and liked it.

  2. #27
    No MFA huh? I assumed the guy who got 81 million votes - most popular leader in human history - could get that done if he wanted to.

    Oh well, at least we're getting war with Russia. Silly old Drumpy didn't start any new wars - pathetic!

  3. #28
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Bow wow wow
    Whose sock puppet art Thou?

  4. #29
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Sometimes it's nice to get the whole story in a headline:

    Trump Attack on Biden’s Competence Misspells ‘Incompetent’

  5. #30
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by RippedPhreak View Post
    I assumed the guy who got 81 million votes - most popular leader in human history - could get that done if he wanted to.
    Well, we should, except for gerrymanders, filibusters, and other random bullshit that Republicans use to outsize their popularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by RippedPhreak View Post
    Oh well, at least we're getting war with Russia. Silly old Drumpy didn't start any new wars - pathetic!
    ...We're not getting war with Russia. If Russia does decide to invade Ukraine, that's on them. When did Republicans suddenly started worshipping at the altar of appeasement? They call themselves the party of Lincoln when they're clearly not even the party of Dubya.

  6. #31
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    When did Republicans suddenly started worshipping at the altar of appeasement? They call themselves the party of Lincoln when they're clearly not even the party of Dubya.
    Since it became all about performative assholery and power:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...69b3a72331e6e/

    In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.

    A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.

    -- Overall, a bare 51 percent majority of U.S. adults support the president’s action in our new poll. In 2013, just 30 percent supported strikes. That swing is driven primarily by GOP partisans. For context, 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error.

  7. #32
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Not to mention that Putin's boldness was inspired by T***p's incompetency and comradery. Also aided by the piles of national security information Donny funneled to Vlad to purchase his friendship. Blaming Biden for Putin is just more vile projection by the GQP.

    Tell me again, RippedPhreak, who is actually protecting pedophiles in government?

  8. #33
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Tell me again, RippedPhreak, who is actually protecting pedophiles in government?
    Ooh, I know this one: Alexander Acosta?

  9. #34
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Damn you, Stark! Stop helping!

  10. #35
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Tell that to Acosta.

  11. #36
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    This poll doesn't have what will actually happen in it. Biden will win against Trump for a second term despite Republicans cheating in every possible way and then they will completely lose their shit and destroy the government and it's system for elections while blaming liberals and sucking Trump off on the capital steps. Why must you make me beat you liberals? You know you should just keep your commie mouth shut. You know I don't want to actually use all the weapons I've been amassing. You know I love you. I can't wait to break out the flame thrower of liberty and watch your skin melt but you know I gots to singe me some constitution. I works hard to support you. Why you gotta make me hurt you? FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDUMB!

  12. #37
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    When did Republicans suddenly started worshipping at the altar of appeasement?
    They oppose war when it means doing whatever the opposite of "those librulz" do. It's exciting having the same people who harassed me into nearly leaving the country because I opposed the Afghan/Iraq wars suddenly oppose using our military for one of the few reasons its existence is justified (i.e. defending the sovereignty of an ally). Which we aren't even planning on doing in the event of an invasion, anyway.

  13. #38
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: In my room
    Speaking of Afghanistan: Can someone explain how the US administration justifies stealing 3.5 Billion Dollars from them?
    https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...njust-n1289166

  14. #39
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Taking a little of the 5.8 trillion spent there back maybe?

  15. #40
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    They don't, cause there is no justification.

    Here's how the lobbyists justify it, though (bolding mine):

    https://theintercept.com/2022/02/16/...ers-lobbyists/

    Kreindler & Kreindler, in a message to its clients this week obtained by The Intercept, emphasized that there are many outstanding legal issues surrounding the $3.5 billion in Afghanistan central bank funds and that they are working on intervening.

    “We are disappointed that the DOJ did not take action that would have made these assets available to the 9/11 Families immediately and on an equitable basis and we are continuing to work with our lobbying team and reaching out to law and policy makers to urge them to do so now,” the law firm noted.

    Andrew Maloney, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler, argued his firm deserves Afghanistan’s money because they didn’t fight the Taliban hard enough. “The reality is, the Afghan people didn’t stand up to the Taliban. … They bear some responsibility for the condition they’re in.” Kreindler & Kreindler and Motley Rice did not respond to a request for comment.

    The potential payouts for the attorneys themselves are considerable. The law firms have worked on a contingency basis and have squabbled over fee arrangements in the past. But under even a conservative 15 percent fee structure, the Afghan funds would create a windfall of $525 million in legal fees. Some lobbyists may also reap a massive payday from the Afghan funds. In a lawsuit filed in federal court last year, alleging breach of contract, lobbyists formerly working with Kreindler & Kreindler revealed that the plaintiff’s firm had compensated its lobbyists by promising them a percentage of the 9/11 victims’ awards.
    Last edited by Starker; 18th Feb 2022 at 00:28.

  16. #41
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2001
    Location: OldDark Detox Clinic
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Taking a little of the 5.8 trillion spent there back maybe?
    That is a valid point, but it still isn't justified...

  17. #42
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    When you consider that money came from the US, it may not be the decent thing to do, but it is justified. It's a horrible thing to do to the people there but in not choosing to fight against the Taliban they were choosing to go back to the way it was with the Taliban and aside from drug money it was a pauper state. And I'm not saying Trumps negotiation with the Taliban didn't pull the rug out from under them either but the Taliban had taken much of the territory in recent years and there seemed to be no true resistance from the people. As a matter of fact we were never seen as anything but invaders by much of the populace. It's like that Monty Python joke about "what have the Romans ever done for us". Sadly the country is going back to economic ruin now anyway. Slower would have been better for the populace naturally. It would give them time to adjust or flee. I'm also not saying there aren't those there who would not have struggled for a democracy with elected leaders but sadly it wasn't enough. Theocratic dictatorship seems well rooted and without oil money it will never attain the success of even Iran on that front.

  18. #43
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The problem here, though, is that this money didn't come from the US, but from people of Afghanistan and contributions of various countries. If it was just US aid to Afghanistan, etc, nobody would really have a problem with it. This is money collected post 2001 as taxes etc that the Afghan central bank kept in New York.

    Now, of course the Afghan government that collected the money ceased to exist, so it's certainly somewhat up in the air what the money should be used for, but the US just grabbing it for themselves to pay to the victims of an attack Afghanistan had absolutely nothing to do with is certainly not what most people would consider just in any way shape or form, unless you believe in collective punishments for failing to fight sufficiently hard enough against an oppressive regime.

    Also, it should be mentioned that the US chose to invade Afghanistan. It wasn't invited there by the Afghan people. What the US spent in there in lives and wealth and so on has nothing to do with the Afghan people and the US has no right to any restitution from them for any expenses incurred during its military ventures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    It's a horrible thing to do to the people there but in not choosing to fight against the Taliban they were choosing to go back to the way it was with the Taliban and aside from drug money it was a pauper state.
    While I don't have a great deal of in-depth knowledge about the situation in Afghanistan, fighting back against people who have all the guns and money and power is often easier said than done, even if you have national unity or aren't constantly being bombed, invaded, and otherwise meddled with by different powers.

    Indians, for example, "chose" to live under the British rule for a long time, even in face of events like the Amritsar massacre where the British rulers just casually murdered hundreds of their subjects when they dared to peacefully protest.

    Now, if the US had actually done any nation-building in Afghanistan, it might be a different story, but all they did was go in there, spend lavish money paying off warlords and US contractors/mercenaries, and then skedaddled.
    Last edited by Starker; 20th Feb 2022 at 04:17.

  19. #44
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Not exactly. The Taliban ruled before we invaded and they allowed a training base for the terrorists of 911. They were shooting any dissenters or religious infraction people in the head in the soccer stadium. Not to mention we came in on the side of the Northern Alliance of tribes. Call them warlords if you want but they were light years better than the Taliban and had been fighting them since the Taliban invaded from Pakistan. From them the various Mullahs fought with each other and us for power after the Taliban had been pushed out and some were coaxed with money and others strong armed into dealing with each other until elections could be established.

    Afghan soldiers were trained for over a decade to defend the nation and were equipped with plenty of the best of our arsenal. Way more equipped than the Taliban and left with our training, forts, tanks, military vehicles, and helicopters. And as far as nation building, roads, hospitals, schools, government centers, protection during elections, hell, all of that was nation building. News stations were established with more freedom. We tried. In the cities I think the populace would have voted to remain more secular and democratic but the countryside was more backward and prone to support hardcore theocracy like the Taliban. Think of it as trying to get evangelicals to be secular if it helps.

    I'm not sure how you could forget all this. I recall it unfolding as it went along through the years. Not sure how you could ignore that in favor of a slanted version like something out of Soviet propaganda.

    Also I'm curious as to what contributions from other nations were given to the Taliban pre 2001. What countries would give money to the Taliban? Certainly not any worth a damn with all the Taliban were doing.
    Last edited by Tocky; 20th Feb 2022 at 19:48.

  20. #45
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Interestingly I'm reading a history of the Afghanistan war right now, "No Good Men Among the Living" by Anand Gopal. It's fascinating history. You have to first note that Afghanistan is ethnically split between Turkish groups (Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc.) in the north (the Northern Alliance) and Pashtuns (Persians, the Taliban and Karzai's group) in the south.

    Although there was never much of a Southern Alliance, maybe in name only, the US's most important ally were the Pashtuns (through Karzai) because that cut into the Taliban's core base & if the US had sided only with the Northern Alliance it could have led to an outright N v. S civil war. But from your vanilla Afghani's perspective, outside powers coming through Pakistan had determined every single regime since the Soviet invasion, so Karzai's regime was also under that cloud.

    The source of the Taliban's power was the anarchy that took over by warring camps. The perception was that they were the ones that stopped rampant looting & rape happening and brought order to the country. And people wanted to feel part of something ordered. But there was a lot of opposition as well, mostly kept at bay especially in the south by the Taliban's military hold & their extreme measures to "keep order" that kept the population silent.

    The Taliban was (is) slippery though. There's this dual dynamic, either extreme loyalty and enforcing total control, but at the smallest hint of risk, the men would just disappear back into civilian life without a second thought. But just as easily they could slip into it. So it could emerge from and disappear into nothing in a moment, and kept doing so in endless waves.

    I haven't researched about this money marked for Afghanistan that was set aside. The Taliban have control of most every social institution in the country, so I wouldn't trust that spending it in the country would have much use aside from empowering the Taliban even more, unless you're arming rebel groups, but I don't know if there's political capital for that. We just pulled out of a war; who would want to fund a new one?

    I was also reading that from the vanilla Afghani's perspective, the US pulled out exactly because it was intending to hand power back over to the Taliban ... because that's what it looked like was happening. That was the Taliban narrative. They assumed they'd be taking back control. The "military" that the US armed were not the unified nationalist force the US narrative really wanted it to be because that's not how Afghanistan politics works.

    As for spending it on 911 matters. I could see how politically they would think of that. Well it's obvious, almost inevitable. The entire war was blindly driven by 911. The Taliban did harbor Al Qaeda, but they were also trying to figure out a way to get rid of them. Actually in the run-up, from the Taliban perspective US intervention to get Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan was something they welcomed, until they realized the US was coming after them as well. In a similar way, Iran & the US also cooperated to fight Al Qaeda influence in Afghanistan. I think this use of the funds hearkens back to some of the original shortsightedness of the whole enterprise.

    It was a shortsighted war and confused objectives & corruption touched almost every part of it. There's a reason this book is called "No good men among the living." So far it's a great book. Aside from really getting into the weeds of all the different motivations, just the human drama of war for the different sides (for major scenes the guy will interview, e.g., the US commanders and then the Taliban commanders, seeing how the same battle or event looked from their perspective) makes for really interesting reading.
    Last edited by demagogue; 21st Feb 2022 at 01:41.

  21. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    As a matter of fact we were never seen as anything but invaders by much of the populace.
    Uh, I wonder why...

    The Afghan debacle was an invasion fueled by revenge. I'm not gonna judge here, because it was 20 years ago and the situation was what it was, but pretending the US went there out of the goodness of their heart is being seriously economical with the truth. They were considered invaders because duh, they were. Noone invited them there.

  22. #47
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    That's a very simplistic view, rachel. The Northern Alliance welcomed us in their fight against the Taliban. However it does illustrate the simple view of much of the Afghan people. I guess you didn't get the next sentence about the Monty Python line from "Life of Brian". And I hate to break your illusion but NOBODY is completely altruistic, not even YOU. Of course the invasion of the country was hoped to have beneficial effects for all concerned. A more western style government and social structure would have benefited and did benefit the people. It was certainly better than the Taliban invasion was. Some got it eventually. Some fought it and now the whole country is the worse for that. We would have been out much earlier if they hadn't fought. But hey, at least they got those invaders out huh? What have the Romans ever done for us right?

  23. #48
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Not exactly. The Taliban ruled before we invaded and they allowed a training base for the terrorists of 911. They were shooting any dissenters or religious infraction people in the head in the soccer stadium.
    Okay, Taliban had control of a sizeable portion of the country and they allowed terrorists to train there and they were real bastards. Fine, bomb them, take them out, whatever. But the 9/11 attacks itself didn't really have to do anything with the nation of Afghanistan or the people there and, by all accounts, the Taliban were not involved in them. Punishing the Afghan people for it is about as justified as punishing Americans for the Blackwater massacre, because the US allowed the group to operate and train on their soil and later pardoned the perpetrators and celebrated them as heroes.

    Not to mention that Taliban was already out of power by the time the money was deposited in the NY bank, so it doesn't even have anything to do with them, but the US-supported Afghanistan government.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Not to mention we came in on the side of the Northern Alliance of tribes. Call them warlords if you want but they were light years better than the Taliban and had been fighting them since the Taliban invaded from Pakistan.
    I'm not talking about the corruption of the Afghanistan government, even, although that's another thing that contributed to this whole mess (not to mention all the problems that come with propping up a faction that lacks popular support). I'm talking about the various local warlords to whom you paid protection money in order to not be attacked, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Afghan soldiers were trained for over a decade to defend the nation and were equipped with plenty of the best of our arsenal. Way more equipped than the Taliban and left with our training, forts, tanks, military vehicles, and helicopters. And as far as nation building, roads, hospitals, schools, government centers, protection during elections, hell, all of that was nation building. News stations were established with more freedom. We tried. In the cities I think the populace would have voted to remain more secular and democratic but the countryside was more backward and prone to support hardcore theocracy like the Taliban. Think of it as trying to get evangelicals to be secular if it helps.

    I'm not sure how you could forget all this. I recall it unfolding as it went along through the years. Not sure how you could ignore that in favor of a slanted version like something out of Soviet propaganda.
    I think that's a very optimistic and sunny outlook you have there. The realities on the ground are often different, though. You can't force democracy on the people, it has to be built up from the ground. It depends even more on traditions and trust in institutions than it does on infrastructure or the force to defend it. And you can give someone an expensive helicopter, but without people to operate and service it (which was done by American contractors) and the replacement parts to keep it running, it's just an expensive piece of junk. Which you guys blew a hole into before leaving, for good measure.

    Also, the US released thousands of Taliban prisoners before the pullout and negotiated with them, setting up a wide-spread expectation in the various factions that the US is leaving Afghanistan to them. That's a big factor in why they were able to gather support so quickly and why anyone thinking of opposing them had no big illusions of success or trust in US support (not that the US is exactly known for their trustworthiness in the region to start with, but that's a huge topic in and of itself).

    I'm not sure how you could forget all this. I recall it unfolding just these past couple of years. Not sure how you could ignore that in favour of a slanted version like something out of colonial propaganda.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Also I'm curious as to what contributions from other nations were given to the Taliban pre 2001. What countries would give money to the Taliban? Certainly not any worth a damn with all the Taliban were doing.
    I don't know what you mean, as I was talking about post 2001, the period that the money was collected. And yes, a lot of the money was made in part thanks to foreign contributions in some form or another, as the Afghanistan economy was essentially propped up by outside help, but that's neither here nor there, really. If I give you 300 dollars as a gift and you invest it to make 30 dollars from that, I don't then get to come and take it from you.
    Last edited by Starker; 22nd Feb 2022 at 01:50.

  24. #49
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    A little history lesson on the topic, from the perspective of political science:



    ...and a follow-up for Iraq, in case anyone's interested:

    Last edited by Starker; 22nd Feb 2022 at 03:02.

  25. #50
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Okay, Taliban had control of a sizeable portion of the country and they allowed terrorists to train there and they were real bastards. Fine, bomb them, take them out, whatever. But the 9/11 attacks itself didn't really have to do anything with the nation of Afghanistan or the people there and, by all accounts, the Taliban were not involved in them. Punishing the Afghan people for it is about as justified as punishing Americans for the Blackwater massacre, because the US allowed the group to operate and train on their soil and later pardoned the perpetrators and celebrated them as heroes.

    Not to mention that Taliban was already out of power by the time the money was deposited in the NY bank, so it doesn't even have anything to do with them, but the US-supported Afghanistan government.
    Dear lord I didn't want to get into anything lengthy (said the military) but I already mentioned much of what you are saying, just in a less wordy way. I said it wasn't the decent thing to do right? Your last sentence is confusing BTW. The US deposed the Taliban and then took the money to a NY bank? They were never fully deposed countrywide but I don't understand the timeline. This is the one thing you have said that I didn't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I'm not talking about the corruption of the Afghanistan government, even, although that's another thing that contributed to this whole mess (not to mention all the problems that come with propping up a faction that lacks popular support). I'm talking about the various local warlords to whom you paid protection money in order to not be attacked, etc.
    A faction that lacks popular support? They were a faction that was ELECTED and therefore the most popular. They weren't even the one WE most favored. And again, I don't see anything wrong with protection money when it saves lives, ours and little kids we are giving candy to when they decide to bomb us as we hand it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I think that's a very optimistic and sunny outlook you have there. The realities on the ground are often different, though. You can't force democracy on the people, it has to be built up from the ground. It depends even more on traditions and trust in institutions than it does on infrastructure or the force to defend it. And you can give someone an expensive helicopter, but without people to operate and service it (which was done by American contractors) and the replacement parts to keep it running, it's just an expensive piece of junk. Which you guys blew a hole into before leaving, for good measure.
    Sunny outlook? All I stated were facts and I don't find anything about war sunny. It's true you can't force democracy on people hence why I said what I did about the cities verses countryside. I think there were a fair few who have gotten the idea it's not cool to shoot girls in the head for going to school in the cities and would be happy to vote their leaders in there. You disagree? Also how did we all see the Taliban starting up a helicopter if we blew holes in them? That was one of the things the Republicans blew their shit over. We left perfectly functioning equipment. Parts? Really? You wanted a warehouse of parts left for the Taliban? Maybe if the Afghan army had stood up to them we could have supplied them as needed but just handing them over to the Taliban who walked right in hardly seems wise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Also, the US released thousands of Taliban prisoners before the pullout and negotiated with them, setting up a wide-spread expectation in the various factions that the US is leaving Afghanistan to them. That's a big factor in why they were able to gather support so quickly and why anyone thinking of opposing them had no big illusions of success or trust in US support (not that the US is exactly known for their trustworthiness in the region to start with, but that's a huge topic in and of itself).
    Hence why I said "pulled out the rug" about this. Trump is a fucking idiot and it could have been done wayyyyy better. Not sure why you are saying the things I said. Ten years of training the Afghan military went for naught. We had to leave sometime though and the best we could offer at leaving is air support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I'm not sure how you could forget all this. I recall it unfolding just these past couple of years. Not sure how you could ignore that in favour of a slanted version like something out of colonial propaganda.
    LOL at the using my words bit but I had already said what you said before you did. Go back and read it. It's still there. I just was not entirely anti US or as wordy. Is that how the colonials do it? The only thing new was the holes in helicopters thing which is wrong anyway as far as I know. The reason I got your goat about Russian propaganda is because you were being entirely slanted and I think you know that. With the taking of Ukraine I've seen such propaganda from them, just completely slanted. I know what we were trying to do in Afghanistan and we lost so much money and so many good men trying. Then came Trumps dumb ass. We had to get out after he did that. Not that we didn't need to anyway, just not completely capitulating to the Taliban.


    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I don't know what you mean, as I was talking about post 2001, the period that the money was collected. And yes, a lot of the money was made in part thanks to foreign contributions in some form or another, as the Afghanistan economy was essentially propped up by outside help, but that's neither here nor there, really. If I give you 300 dollars as a gift and you invest it to make 30 dollars from that, I don't then get to come and take it from you.
    I was asking who was giving money to the Taliban. They were pre 2001. Who would? It was an appeal to think of who would. I can think of who. Can you? If there is a way to give the money to the people of Afghanistan without it going to the Taliban now I'm all for it. Not that anything I think makes a damn to anyone in power.

    Wait... POST 2001? That was us. 5.8 trillion all together and not intended for the Taliban at any point in time. I guess I'm confused about the timeline for this particular money.
    Last edited by Tocky; 22nd Feb 2022 at 22:25.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •