Afghan "train, advise and assist" 1984 style

[bilby]

If you put it that way, muslims already have western values. But no, I was referring to democracy, equality, and establishing a domestic puppet government.

Perhaps you're being snarky, I have trouble telling on TFT.

But could you either explain that or give an example of a Muslim country that invaded another country and laid waste? Some examples from the last century?

Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Tom

Well there's the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, that began the eight year long Gulf War, now known as the Iran Iraq War, after the Americans usurped the name 'Gulf War' to describe their own invasions in the region.

That's a pretty good example.

 

[Gospel]

Glad to see my dysfunctional family of TFTer's are functioning like normal on this topic. Makes my heart so warm. BTW my opinion is Biden made a stupid move not making the exit more strategic. I mean, why even announce we're leaving until you've gotten everyone important to the US out?

 

[Patooka]

Glad to see my dysfunctional family of TFTer's are functioning like normal on this topic. Makes my heart so warm. BTW my opinion is Biden made a stupid move not making the exit more strategic. I mean, why even announce we're leaving until you've gotten everyone important to the US out?

Because that is exactly what happened. Everyone important left months ago. The people leaving now are the sort of people half of America wanted a wall built to keep out.

 

[TomC]

If you put it that way, muslims already have western values. But no, I was referring to democracy, equality, and establishing a domestic puppet government.

Perhaps you're being snarky, I have trouble telling on TFT.

But could you either explain that or give an example of a Muslim country that invaded another country and laid waste? Some examples from the last century?

Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Tom

Well there's the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, that began the eight year long Gulf War, now known as the Iran Iraq War, after the Americans usurped the name 'Gulf War' to describe their own invasions in the region.

That's a pretty good example.

Truth is,
That was a USA invasion of Iran. We used Baathist Hussein as a proxy. But that was the USA invading Iran, not Iraq.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Well there's the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, that began the eight year long Gulf War, now known as the Iran Iraq War, after the Americans usurped the name 'Gulf War' to describe their own invasions in the region.

That's a pretty good example.

Truth is,
That was a USA invasion of Iran. We used Baathist Hussein as a proxy. But that was the USA invading Iran, not Iraq.
Tom

Nah, it really wasn't.

The USA didn't have any qualms about supporting Saddam, but they didn't start the war, and didn't take a direct (or even much of an indirect) role, until it looked like Iraq might not win. Lots of foreign nations provided similar support on both sides, but none were daft enough to get directly involved in a conflict that never looked likely to achieve anything for anyone except lots of needless killing. Rumours of US encouragement for launching the invasion appear to be just that - rumours. If there were substance behind them, it would be remarkable that no hard evidence has yet leaked out, particularly after Saddam lost power.

Not everything is about the USA. They were just one of the many minor supporters on both sides, though most international support webt to Iraq.

Given the context of the Cold War, it's notable that both East Germany and West Germany supported Iraq, which sets the conflict apart from the majority of wars fought between 1945 and 1991.

The US might have been able to apply diplomatic pressure to stop the Iraqi invasion, had they cared to do so. But they didn't, so they didn't. That doesn't mean that they started it, or that they were particularly important amongst the non-combatant allies of the two sides.

 

[DBT]

Here's an interesting summary of the situation in Afghanistan:

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/iaPhUBMfGGk[/YOUTUBE]

 

[TV and credit cards]

Here's an interesting summary of the situation in Afghanistan:

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/iaPhUBMfGGk[/YOUTUBE]

Why? It’s just the typical Fox horseshit. Present your horseshit as fact knowing no one listening is going to verify it (US aid/Pakistan military budget) and if you do and you notice conflict with what I’m saying, it’s fake. Connect extraneous facts and present them out of context as if they are evidence. Tell your audience this is really simple, that there is one underlying reason for everything and that we are here to cut through the weeds and explain it to you. And just in case you’re not quite getting it, tell them everyone in the studio does. They’re all nodding in agreement. You should be too. Tucker recognizes it as the truth and you trust Tucker.
Is this what you meant by “interesting”?

 

[DBT]

Here's an interesting summary of the situation in Afghanistan:

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/iaPhUBMfGGk[/YOUTUBE]

Why? It’s just the typical Fox horseshit. Present your horseshit as fact knowing no one listening is going to verify it (US aid/Pakistan military budget) and if you do and you notice conflict with what I’m saying, it’s fake. Connect extraneous facts and present them out of context as if they are evidence. Tell your audience this is really simple, that there is one underlying reason for everything and that we are here to cut through the weeds and explain it to you. And just in case you’re not quite getting it, tell them everyone in the studio does. They’re all nodding in agreement. You should be too. Tucker recognizes it as the truth and you trust Tucker.
Is this what you meant by “interesting”?

I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false. Which makes it an interesting blend, an exercise in sorting fact from fiction.

Or are you saying that nothing that was said is true? That it's all horseshit from start to finish?

 

[barbos]

Here's an interesting summary of the situation in Afghanistan:

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/iaPhUBMfGGk[/YOUTUBE]

Why? It’s just the typical Fox horseshit. Present your horseshit as fact knowing no one listening is going to verify it (US aid/Pakistan military budget) and if you do and you notice conflict with what I’m saying, it’s fake. Connect extraneous facts and present them out of context as if they are evidence. Tell your audience this is really simple, that there is one underlying reason for everything and that we are here to cut through the weeds and explain it to you. And just in case you’re not quite getting it, tell them everyone in the studio does. They’re all nodding in agreement. You should be too. Tucker recognizes it as the truth and you trust Tucker.
Is this what you meant by “interesting”?

I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false. Which makes it an interesting blend, an exercise in sorting fact from fiction.

Or are you saying that nothing that was said is true? That it's all horseshit from start to finish?

She had me until she started talking about Big Tech and Critical Race Theory. Weird how people can be sensible about one thing and batshit crazy about another.

Pakistan influence over taliban was mentioned in this thread before. I still think it's crazy to think that US would spend trillions of dollars and 20 years while there was such a simple solution - ask Pakistan not to support taliban.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Here's an interesting summary of the situation in Afghanistan:

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/iaPhUBMfGGk[/YOUTUBE]

Why? It’s just the typical Fox horseshit. Present your horseshit as fact knowing no one listening is going to verify it (US aid/Pakistan military budget) and if you do and you notice conflict with what I’m saying, it’s fake. Connect extraneous facts and present them out of context as if they are evidence. Tell your audience this is really simple, that there is one underlying reason for everything and that we are here to cut through the weeds and explain it to you. And just in case you’re not quite getting it, tell them everyone in the studio does. They’re all nodding in agreement. You should be too. Tucker recognizes it as the truth and you trust Tucker.
Is this what you meant by “interesting”?

I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false. Which makes it an interesting blend, an exercise in sorting fact from fiction.

Or are you saying that nothing that was said is true? That it's all horseshit from start to finish?

A quick look on Wikipedia indicates her Pakistan military funding is false. Then there’s the dog whistles barbos mentioned that she just threw in to stir the emotions of the viewers. The claims that Tucker and others in the studio are in agreement to reinforce her claims. That Tucker is astonished by her claims. That everything in life can be boiled down to one simple explanation. That there are some opaque bureaucrats in the background pulling the strings. Presenting information in such a way calls into question her integrity as a journalist and makes her claims not worth further review.

 

[DBT]

I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false. Which makes it an interesting blend, an exercise in sorting fact from fiction.

Or are you saying that nothing that was said is true? That it's all horseshit from start to finish?

A quick look on Wikipedia indicates her Pakistan military funding is false. Then there’s the dog whistles barbos mentioned that she just threw in to stir the emotions of the viewers. The claims that Tucker and others in the studio are in agreement to reinforce her claims. That Tucker is astonished by her claims. That everything in life can be boiled down to one simple explanation. That there are some opaque bureaucrats in the background pulling the strings. Presenting information in such a way calls into question her integrity as a journalist and makes her claims not worth further review.

I'm not really interested in arguing over the video. I threw it out for viewers to assess what she said. As I've said, I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false, just that there are interesting bits and pieces.

 

[DBT]

I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false. Which makes it an interesting blend, an exercise in sorting fact from fiction.

Or are you saying that nothing that was said is true? That it's all horseshit from start to finish?

She had me until she started talking about Big Tech and Critical Race Theory. Weird how people can be sensible about one thing and batshit crazy about another.

Pakistan influence over taliban was mentioned in this thread before. I still think it's crazy to think that US would spend trillions of dollars and 20 years while there was such a simple solution - ask Pakistan not to support taliban.

Obviously there is more to it than that. I guess they could have cut funding or placed sanctions....

 

[Gospel]

Glad to see my dysfunctional family of TFTer's are functioning like normal on this topic. Makes my heart so warm. BTW my opinion is Biden made a stupid move not making the exit more strategic. I mean, why even announce we're leaving until you've gotten everyone important to the US out?

Because that is exactly what happened. Everyone important left months ago. The people leaving now are the sort of people half of America wanted a wall built to keep out.

I think you're right. At least I hope you are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Polls indicating Americans struggling to feign interest in events in Afghanistan.

It really appears Biden's view of victory is evacuation from Afghanistan with no American losses. Setting the bar low kind of helps... and also not being the originator of the incursion helps as well. The US appears to be getting lots of people out, but it won't be too many. But it does appear that the US and allies didn't abandon everyone in Afghanistan... just the country in general. For an evacuation that turned to crap, it appears tactics adapted to deal with the trouble in good time. So with the low bar, the Taliban kind of playing ball, and the military and Executive Branch working together instead of President Trump shitting all over Twitter, this might have been one of the best outcomes out of all the rather poor ones.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false. Which makes it an interesting blend, an exercise in sorting fact from fiction.

Or are you saying that nothing that was said is true? That it's all horseshit from start to finish?

A quick look on Wikipedia indicates her Pakistan military funding is false. Then there’s the dog whistles barbos mentioned that she just threw in to stir the emotions of the viewers. The claims that Tucker and others in the studio are in agreement to reinforce her claims. That Tucker is astonished by her claims. That everything in life can be boiled down to one simple explanation. That there are some opaque bureaucrats in the background pulling the strings. Presenting information in such a way calls into question her integrity as a journalist and makes her claims not worth further review.

I'm not really interested in arguing over the video. I threw it out for viewers to assess what she said. As I've said, I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false, just that there are interesting bits and pieces.

You dump a bucket of horseshit on the table and tell us rooting through it could provide something interesting. When people complain that it is horseshit, you respond, well, I'm not really interested in talking about what is on the table, I just thought it was interesting.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you put it that way, muslims already have western values. But no, I was referring to democracy, equality, and establishing a domestic puppet government.

Perhaps you're being snarky, I have trouble telling on TFT.

But could you either explain that or give an example of a Muslim country that invaded another country and laid waste? Some examples from the last century?

Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Tom

Well there's the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, that began the eight year long Gulf War, now known as the Iran Iraq War, after the Americans usurped the name 'Gulf War' to describe their own invasions in the region.

That's a pretty good example.

Honestly, historians very well may usurp The Hundred Year War when all is said and done as the events in the Middle East/Persia have been on-going and inter-related since the 1950s. Or maybe just the 70 year war... because I'm certain the West has learned its lesson regarding trying to meddle in the Middle East/Persia.

Okay, maybe not.

 

[funinspace]

I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false. Which makes it an interesting blend, an exercise in sorting fact from fiction.

Or are you saying that nothing that was said is true? That it's all horseshit from start to finish?

She had me until she started talking about Big Tech and Critical Race Theory. Weird how people can be sensible about one thing and batshit crazy about another.

Pakistan influence over taliban was mentioned in this thread before. I still think it's crazy to think that US would spend trillions of dollars and 20 years while there was such a simple solution - ask Pakistan not to support taliban.

Obviously there is more to it than that. I guess they could have cut funding or placed sanctions....

Uh...wut....it was a long series of tugs of war with Pakistan. A key problem had always been how does one get resources in/out of Afghanistan. This is one of the reasons we had established a route thru Russia for a few years, then down thru the other northern *stan countries into Afghanistan. Even that land route was 2-3 times more expensive than thru Pakistan. But if we pissed off Pakistan too much they could have denied the US air travel rights over their country...all part of the convoluted set of compromises we had to make as we played Civilization...

Under Pres. Obama:
https://www.npr.org/2011/07/10/137746664/u-s-to-suspend-800-million-in-aid-to-pakistan

The Obama administration's decision to suspend $800 million in aid to the Pakistan's military signals a tougher U.S. line with a critical but sometimes unreliable partner in the fight against terrorism.

Under SCROTUS (Ironically, El Cheeto was actually on the right page as one of those rare occurrences):
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/8/16850116/trump-pakistan-suspend-aid

“The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit,” Trump tweeted on January 1. “They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

It quickly became clear that Trump’s tweet was more than an idle threat. On Thursday the State Department announced that the US was freezing most military aid to Pakistan. The administration has declined to specify the exact amount of funds it will cut off, but the suspension could freeze up to $1.3 billion in aid.

The move has infuriated Pakistan. Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that the US had turned Islamabad into a “whipping boy” to distract from its own failures in the war in Afghanistan. He also implied that the US’s move could end up torching cooperation between the US and Pakistan on issues like sharing intelligence. “We do not have any alliance” with the US, he said. “This is not how allies behave.”

Trump’s decision to freeze huge amounts of aid to Pakistan is driven by a grievance that was also held by the Obama administration — that Pakistan is aiding powerful anti-US militant groups in Afghanistan.

 

[Swammerdami]

... The USA didn't have any qualms about supporting Saddam, but they didn't start the war, and didn't take a direct (or even much of an indirect) role, until it looked like Iraq might not win. Lots of foreign nations provided similar support on both sides, but none were daft enough to get directly involved in a conflict that never looked likely to achieve anything for anyone except lots of needless killing. Rumours of US encouragement for launching the invasion appear to be just that - rumours. If there were substance behind them, it would be remarkable that no hard evidence has yet leaked out, particularly after Saddam lost power....

A cynical view is that the U.S. hated both Iran and Iraq and calibrated its support to prolong the war. (Half a million dead Muslim soldiers was a win for the U.S.) The war benefited U.S. businesses including munitions merchants. The political hack Dick Cheney was rewarded by Halliburton with its CEO slot. Evidence that Cheney, for one, was not anti-Iran despite the GOP-led support for Saddam is that Halliburton allegedy violated the "Trading with Enemies Act" while Cheney was CEO.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ISIS-K blames the unpredictable immediate Afghan military collapse for its failure to react to "ripe on the ground situation" by Kabul airport with terrorism.

 

[ZiprHead]

Another reason I heard that the Taliban took Kabul so quickly is that for many months the Taliban, knowing a pullout was coming, was sending members into Kabul in standard Afghani attire and laying low until the time to strike came. There were many already there when the pullout was announced.