It was never going to end any other way. Honestly, this isn't even Biden's fault. It was a forever war, or this happening. No matter when it happened, it was going to. The Neoconservative fantasy is responsible for this.
It was never going to end any other way. Honestly, this isn't even Biden's fault. It was a forever war, or this happening. No matter when it happened, it was going to. The Neoconservative fantasy is responsible for this.Yes and no. There's a little nuance here.
I'm sure this moved up China's plans to invade Taiwan by a few years.Yup.
I don’t know too much about this but I have a question: US troops have stayed “forever” in Germany and elsewhere. Why couldn’t troops be withdrawn from less dangerous countries and stay in Afghanistan?
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/08/16/world/16afghanistan-palace/16afghanistan-palace-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
Honestly....I don't care if it was biden or whomever. I don't feel right using this as a 'OWN' against the dems. I feel thouroughly ashamed and terrible for the collaborators that will die for trying to help the USA.Well said. We rarely agree, but here we do.
I don't think Trumps plan would have been all that better to be honest. It would have broken down in a month instead of a week.
I don't feel great that we have been playing hot potato with this mess between administrations. I feel like...We really need to look inside and get our shit together before we do anything again on the world stage.
Honestly....I don't care if it was biden or whomever. I don't feel right using this as a 'OWN' against the dems. I feel thouroughly ashamed and terrible for the collaborators that will die for trying to help the USA.*laughs in 'deplorable'*
I don't think Trumps plan would have been all that better to be honest. It would have broken down in a month instead of a week.
I don't feel great that we have been playing hot potato with this mess between administrations. I feel like...We really need to look inside and get our shit together before we do anything again on the world stage.
Honestly....I don't care if it was biden or whomever. I don't feel right using this as a 'OWN' against the dems. I feel thouroughly ashamed and terrible for the collaborators that will die for trying to help the USA.
I don't think Trumps plan would have been all that better to be honest. It would have broken down in a month instead of a week.
I don't feel great that we have been playing hot potato with this mess between administrations. I feel like...We really need to look inside and get our shit together before we do anything again on the world stage.
I don't think this is what anyone really wanted, but there are certainly opportunists that want to rush to weaponize the outcome for their political narrative. Try not to be one of those while people are still in harms way, ok?Honestly....I don't care if it was biden or whomever. I don't feel right using this as a 'OWN' against the dems. I feel thouroughly ashamed and terrible for the collaborators that will die for trying to help the USA.*laughs in 'deplorable'*
I don't think Trumps plan would have been all that better to be honest. It would have broken down in a month instead of a week.
I don't feel great that we have been playing hot potato with this mess between administrations. I feel like...We really need to look inside and get our shit together before we do anything again on the world stage.
Yeah, I don't think so. I've just spent years being called racist, deplorable, etc, etc for the high crime of not being down with the progtard narrative.
Don't expect me to lift a finger, except for the middle one.
Oh yeah. And we left thousands of actual Americans in Afghanistan, too, per the Pentagon Press Sec.
https://www.newsweek.com/pentagon-spokesperson-john-kirby-says-there-are-thousands-americans-still-afghanistan-1620144
But then, this is what the left wanted, right?
It was never going to end any other way. Honestly, this isn't even Biden's fault. It was a forever war, or this happening. No matter when it happened, it was going to. The Neoconservative fantasy is responsible for this.
*laughs in 'deplorable'*
Now, Trump rolls into office, upsetting rice bowls left and right. He looks at Afghanistan and says, 'OK, enough is enough. Time to bring our boys home.' He makes a diplomatic overture to the Taliban, secures an exit date of May 1st, 2021, and informs the Afghani government that it's time they put their big boy pants on and stop fucking around.
Unfortunately, the PTB don't LIKE that, and Trump 'loses' the election. Biden rolls in, and because the derp state/proggy narrative is to NEVER EVER let Trump have a point in the win column, Biden's handlers opt to alter the deal. Except they're not Darth fuckin' Vader.
I don’t know too much about this but I have a question: US troops have stayed “forever” in Germany and elsewhere. Why couldn’t troops be withdrawn from less dangerous countries and stay in Afghanistan?
https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-august-13-2021*laughs in 'deplorable'*
I got called all those things as well. But Im still not being shot or put on a execution list.
People in Afghanistan are. I feel bad that through whatever USA crap, they are dying for it.
I'm sure this moved up China's plans to invade Taiwan by a few years.Yup.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1231745.shtml
If I lived in Taiwan I'd be looking for an exit strategy, or figuring out how to welcome my future CCP overlords.
The situation in Afghanistan suddenly saw a radical change after the country was abandoned by the US. And Washington just left despite the worsening situation in Kabul. Is this some kind of omen of Taiwan's future fate?
We also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
So if Trump was in charge, he would have handed the keys over to the Taliban three months sooner and in a more orderly fashion. I get how that is better than a disorderly withdrawal later, but I don't think that huge a difference as implied by the original post. The Taliban would still be in charge and millions of Afghans terrified.There are an estimated 20,000 Afghans who helped the US during the occupation, and are still in Afghanistan.
Again, refer to my above post. The Afghanis were going to be fucked regardless of what happened.Now, Trump rolls into office, upsetting rice bowls left and right. He looks at Afghanistan and says, 'OK, enough is enough. Time to bring our boys home.' He makes a diplomatic overture to the Taliban, secures an exit date of May 1st, 2021, and informs the Afghani government that it's time they put their big boy pants on and stop fucking around.
Unfortunately, the PTB don't LIKE that, and Trump 'loses' the election. Biden rolls in, and because the derp state/proggy narrative is to NEVER EVER let Trump have a point in the win column, Biden's handlers opt to alter the deal. Except they're not Darth fuckin' Vader.
So if Trump was in charge, he would have handed the keys over to the Taliban three months sooner and in a more orderly fashion. I get how that is better than a disorderly withdrawal later, but I don't think that huge a difference as implied by the original post. The Taliban would still be in charge and millions of Afghans terrified.
Just keep sharing your delusions by lashing out at everybody that has stated they don't like what's happening just because you want to believe differently to support your narrative.Again, refer to my above post. The Afghanis were going to be fucked regardless of what happened.Now, Trump rolls into office, upsetting rice bowls left and right. He looks at Afghanistan and says, 'OK, enough is enough. Time to bring our boys home.' He makes a diplomatic overture to the Taliban, secures an exit date of May 1st, 2021, and informs the Afghani government that it's time they put their big boy pants on and stop fucking around.
Unfortunately, the PTB don't LIKE that, and Trump 'loses' the election. Biden rolls in, and because the derp state/proggy narrative is to NEVER EVER let Trump have a point in the win column, Biden's handlers opt to alter the deal. Except they're not Darth fuckin' Vader.
So if Trump was in charge, he would have handed the keys over to the Taliban three months sooner and in a more orderly fashion. I get how that is better than a disorderly withdrawal later, but I don't think that huge a difference as implied by the original post. The Taliban would still be in charge and millions of Afghans terrified.
But we spent twenty fucking years there. If they can't figure out that dealing with the Taliban was a bad deal in 20 years, then we can do nothing for them. It's polishing the turd. It's trying to 'save' a drug addict who hasn't hit his rock bottom yet.
My educated guess is that Trump would've pulled us out and left the keys. Taking with us any 'undesirables' (read: Afghani allies, interpreters, or women who didn't feel like putting on the burka again), as well as our equipment.
But this is clearly what you wanted, right? A confused mad dash for the doors, because our airlift capacity is being used to ferry illegals across the U.S. instead of being used to move ACTUAL allies and equipment that MY GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR.
So FUCK your snotty little 'oh so it would've been different'. There's thousands of actual AMERICANS marooned there now because of this incompetent pack of retards. Thanks so much for your vote. I hope you're proud of it.
Someone got a little tingle from watching Afghanis fall off the plane, I see.Just keep sharing your delusions by lashing out at everybody that has stated they don't like what's happening just because you want to believe differently to support your narrative.Again, refer to my above post. The Afghanis were going to be fucked regardless of what happened.Now, Trump rolls into office, upsetting rice bowls left and right. He looks at Afghanistan and says, 'OK, enough is enough. Time to bring our boys home.' He makes a diplomatic overture to the Taliban, secures an exit date of May 1st, 2021, and informs the Afghani government that it's time they put their big boy pants on and stop fucking around.
Unfortunately, the PTB don't LIKE that, and Trump 'loses' the election. Biden rolls in, and because the derp state/proggy narrative is to NEVER EVER let Trump have a point in the win column, Biden's handlers opt to alter the deal. Except they're not Darth fuckin' Vader.
So if Trump was in charge, he would have handed the keys over to the Taliban three months sooner and in a more orderly fashion. I get how that is better than a disorderly withdrawal later, but I don't think that huge a difference as implied by the original post. The Taliban would still be in charge and millions of Afghans terrified.
But we spent twenty fucking years there. If they can't figure out that dealing with the Taliban was a bad deal in 20 years, then we can do nothing for them. It's polishing the turd. It's trying to 'save' a drug addict who hasn't hit his rock bottom yet.
My educated guess is that Trump would've pulled us out and left the keys. Taking with us any 'undesirables' (read: Afghani allies, interpreters, or women who didn't feel like putting on the burka again), as well as our equipment.
But this is clearly what you wanted, right? A confused mad dash for the doors, because our airlift capacity is being used to ferry illegals across the U.S. instead of being used to move ACTUAL allies and equipment that MY GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR.
So FUCK your snotty little 'oh so it would've been different'. There's thousands of actual AMERICANS marooned there now because of this incompetent pack of retards. Thanks so much for your vote. I hope you're proud of it.
Look more of your nonsense where you erroneously suggest what others believe. You really are a worthless piece of shit and bad at guessing too.Someone got a little tingle from watching Afghanis fall off the plane, I see.Just keep sharing your delusions by lashing out at everybody that has stated they don't like what's happening just because you want to believe differently to support your narrative.Again, refer to my above post. The Afghanis were going to be fucked regardless of what happened.Now, Trump rolls into office, upsetting rice bowls left and right. He looks at Afghanistan and says, 'OK, enough is enough. Time to bring our boys home.' He makes a diplomatic overture to the Taliban, secures an exit date of May 1st, 2021, and informs the Afghani government that it's time they put their big boy pants on and stop fucking around.
Unfortunately, the PTB don't LIKE that, and Trump 'loses' the election. Biden rolls in, and because the derp state/proggy narrative is to NEVER EVER let Trump have a point in the win column, Biden's handlers opt to alter the deal. Except they're not Darth fuckin' Vader.
So if Trump was in charge, he would have handed the keys over to the Taliban three months sooner and in a more orderly fashion. I get how that is better than a disorderly withdrawal later, but I don't think that huge a difference as implied by the original post. The Taliban would still be in charge and millions of Afghans terrified.
But we spent twenty fucking years there. If they can't figure out that dealing with the Taliban was a bad deal in 20 years, then we can do nothing for them. It's polishing the turd. It's trying to 'save' a drug addict who hasn't hit his rock bottom yet.
My educated guess is that Trump would've pulled us out and left the keys. Taking with us any 'undesirables' (read: Afghani allies, interpreters, or women who didn't feel like putting on the burka again), as well as our equipment.
But this is clearly what you wanted, right? A confused mad dash for the doors, because our airlift capacity is being used to ferry illegals across the U.S. instead of being used to move ACTUAL allies and equipment that MY GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR.
So FUCK your snotty little 'oh so it would've been different'. There's thousands of actual AMERICANS marooned there now because of this incompetent pack of retards. Thanks so much for your vote. I hope you're proud of it.
Not really surprising though. You probably deluded yourself into believing Sleepy Joe's rambling incoherent speech (before he raced back off to hide) was 'stunning and brave'.
At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
Surely the US won't have to do much work; only 3% of the population is fully vaxxed in Afghanistan. Covid must be ravaging the whole country; especially with the new variant.
Jokes aside, what is the formal explanation as to why America is in Afghanistan in the first place? I'm a bit out of the loop
Yawn. It hasn't dawned on you yet, has it? I find it pleasing to gain the hatred of the contemptible, like you.Look more of your nonsense where you erroneously suggest what others believe. You really are a worthless piece of shit and bad at guessing too.Someone got a little tingle from watching Afghanis fall off the plane, I see.Just keep sharing your delusions by lashing out at everybody that has stated they don't like what's happening just because you want to believe differently to support your narrative.Again, refer to my above post. The Afghanis were going to be fucked regardless of what happened.Now, Trump rolls into office, upsetting rice bowls left and right. He looks at Afghanistan and says, 'OK, enough is enough. Time to bring our boys home.' He makes a diplomatic overture to the Taliban, secures an exit date of May 1st, 2021, and informs the Afghani government that it's time they put their big boy pants on and stop fucking around.
Unfortunately, the PTB don't LIKE that, and Trump 'loses' the election. Biden rolls in, and because the derp state/proggy narrative is to NEVER EVER let Trump have a point in the win column, Biden's handlers opt to alter the deal. Except they're not Darth fuckin' Vader.
So if Trump was in charge, he would have handed the keys over to the Taliban three months sooner and in a more orderly fashion. I get how that is better than a disorderly withdrawal later, but I don't think that huge a difference as implied by the original post. The Taliban would still be in charge and millions of Afghans terrified.
But we spent twenty fucking years there. If they can't figure out that dealing with the Taliban was a bad deal in 20 years, then we can do nothing for them. It's polishing the turd. It's trying to 'save' a drug addict who hasn't hit his rock bottom yet.
My educated guess is that Trump would've pulled us out and left the keys. Taking with us any 'undesirables' (read: Afghani allies, interpreters, or women who didn't feel like putting on the burka again), as well as our equipment.
But this is clearly what you wanted, right? A confused mad dash for the doors, because our airlift capacity is being used to ferry illegals across the U.S. instead of being used to move ACTUAL allies and equipment that MY GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR.
So FUCK your snotty little 'oh so it would've been different'. There's thousands of actual AMERICANS marooned there now because of this incompetent pack of retards. Thanks so much for your vote. I hope you're proud of it.
Not really surprising though. You probably deluded yourself into believing Sleepy Joe's rambling incoherent speech (before he raced back off to hide) was 'stunning and brave'.
FTFY. No argument, the plan went right out the window in Afghanistan assuming there ever was one. But as a species it's not like we've established a willingness to pause before reaching for the swords.Surely the US won't have to do much work; only 3% of the population is fully vaxxed in Afghanistan. Covid must be ravaging the whole country; especially with the new variant.
Jokes aside, what is the formal explanation as to why America is in Afghanistan in the first place? I'm a bit out of the loop
People in general are dumb shits who will go to war over damn near anything.
At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
The key point, here, is merely technical: China hasn't the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan. Even if they build it (and I guess that they are improving, but honestly dunno) the U.S. Navy is pretty capable to engage and sink the Chinese Navy in the Strait of Taiwan. There isn't much that you can do against four aircraft carriers, and the US Navy conducted exercises aimed to show that they can deploy exactly that in the area.
At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
The key point, here, is merely technical: China hasn't the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan. Even if they build it (and I guess that they are improving, but honestly dunno) the U.S. Navy is pretty capable to engage and sink the Chinese Navy in the Strait of Taiwan. There isn't much that you can do against four aircraft carriers, and the US Navy conducted exercises aimed to show that they can deploy exactly that in the area. The message was clear.
The remaining question is "What happens if the war turns nuclear?" Rather worryingly, China is pursuing a nuclear buildup. It appears that they aim to reach parity with the US and Russia.
But a war for Taiwan will be an air and naval one. No troops on the ground (some could be deployed along the coast as deterrence). Of course the US and their allies could still fuck-up big time and one day wake up after China is already in Taiwan. It that case there will be nothing to do.
At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
The key point, here, is merely technical: China hasn't the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan. Even if they build it (and I guess that they are improving, but honestly dunno) the U.S. Navy is pretty capable to engage and sink the Chinese Navy in the Strait of Taiwan. There isn't much that you can do against four aircraft carriers, and the US Navy conducted exercises aimed to show that they can deploy exactly that in the area. The message was clear.
The remaining question is "What happens if the war turns nuclear?" Rather worryingly, China is pursuing a nuclear buildup. It appears that they aim to reach parity with the US and Russia.
But a war for Taiwan will be an air and naval one. No troops on the ground (some could be deployed along the coast as deterrence). Of course the US and their allies could still fuck-up big time and one day wake up after China is already in Taiwan. It that case there will be nothing to do.
Surely the US won't have to do much work; only 3% of the population is fully vaxxed in Afghanistan. Covid must be ravaging the whole country; especially with the new variant.
Jokes aside, what is the formal explanation as to why America is in Afghanistan in the first place? I'm a bit out of the loop
Spreading FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY from 30k feet up and from the barrel of a machine gun. Because honestly, Americans are dumb shits who will go to war over damn near anything.
Hunter-killer submarines would be my weapon of choice, though I admit I have no idea how sharp China's anti-sub warfare is.At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
The key point, here, is merely technical: China hasn't the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan. Even if they build it (and I guess that they are improving, but honestly dunno) the U.S. Navy is pretty capable to engage and sink the Chinese Navy in the Strait of Taiwan. There isn't much that you can do against four aircraft carriers, and the US Navy conducted exercises aimed to show that they can deploy exactly that in the area. The message was clear.
The remaining question is "What happens if the war turns nuclear?" Rather worryingly, China is pursuing a nuclear buildup. It appears that they aim to reach parity with the US and Russia.
But a war for Taiwan will be an air and naval one. No troops on the ground (some could be deployed along the coast as deterrence). Of course the US and their allies could still fuck-up big time and one day wake up after China is already in Taiwan. It that case there will be nothing to do.
Hey, there are never troops on the ground...till some asshat decides we need troops on the ground. I also think the US Navy *could* create a one sided blood bath with China, however I think the chances of a US naval ship or plane firing on Chinese military forces is effectively zero.
Surely the US won't have to do much work; only 3% of the population is fully vaxxed in Afghanistan. Covid must be ravaging the whole country; especially with the new variant.
Jokes aside, what is the formal explanation as to why America is in Afghanistan in the first place? I'm a bit out of the loop
Spreading FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY from 30k feet up and from the barrel of a machine gun. Because honestly, Americans are dumb shits who will go to war over damn near anything.
It's not "Americans", It's the people who are running the country; politicians, moguls and others. I reckon most people don't even know what's going on in the Middle East, and they had to be convinced in order to pull these interventions off; WMD, babies in incubators and others...
At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
The key point, here, is merely technical: China hasn't the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan. Even if they build it (and I guess that they are improving, but honestly dunno) the U.S. Navy is pretty capable to engage and sink the Chinese Navy in the Strait of Taiwan. There isn't much that you can do against four aircraft carriers, and the US Navy conducted exercises aimed to show that they can deploy exactly that in the area. The message was clear.
The remaining question is "What happens if the war turns nuclear?" Rather worryingly, China is pursuing a nuclear buildup. It appears that they aim to reach parity with the US and Russia.
But a war for Taiwan will be an air and naval one. No troops on the ground (some could be deployed along the coast as deterrence). Of course the US and their allies could still fuck-up big time and one day wake up after China is already in Taiwan. It that case there will be nothing to do.
Hey, there are never troops on the ground...till some asshat decides we need troops on the ground. I also think the US Navy *could* create a one sided blood bath with China, however I think the chances of a US naval ship or plane firing on Chinese military forces is effectively zero.
At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
The key point, here, is merely technical: China hasn't the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan. Even if they build it (and I guess that they are improving, but honestly dunno) the U.S. Navy is pretty capable to engage and sink the Chinese Navy in the Strait of Taiwan. There isn't much that you can do against four aircraft carriers, and the US Navy conducted exercises aimed to show that they can deploy exactly that in the area.
You so sure about that given Chinese missile capability? The US Navy is projecting power across a big distance whereas the Chinese are firing from their mainland or their littoral waters. There's been some interesting talk about small, maneuverable green water fleets in the SCS versus the big WW2 style blue water fleets. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable making that bet if I was Taiwanese.
And just because I'm going for that Golden Asshole trophy.
https://twitter.com/elibremer/status/1427632616707088397
Take a good look, lads and lasses. Foreign policy success, right?
At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
The key point, here, is merely technical: China hasn't the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan. Even if they build it (and I guess that they are improving, but honestly dunno) the U.S. Navy is pretty capable to engage and sink the Chinese Navy in the Strait of Taiwan. There isn't much that you can do against four aircraft carriers, and the US Navy conducted exercises aimed to show that they can deploy exactly that in the area. The message was clear.
The remaining question is "What happens if the war turns nuclear?" Rather worryingly, China is pursuing a nuclear buildup. It appears that they aim to reach parity with the US and Russia.
But a war for Taiwan will be an air and naval one. No troops on the ground (some could be deployed along the coast as deterrence). Of course the US and their allies could still fuck-up big time and one day wake up after China is already in Taiwan. It that case there will be nothing to do.
Hey, there are never troops on the ground...till some asshat decides we need troops on the ground. I also think the US Navy *could* create a one sided blood bath with China, however I think the chances of a US naval ship or plane firing on Chinese military forces is effectively zero.
Either the US, for some reason, decide that Taiwan is not worth the effort (cue: North Korea paying attention), or they will fire. There are no other avenues of action.At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
The key point, here, is merely technical: China hasn't the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan. Even if they build it (and I guess that they are improving, but honestly dunno) the U.S. Navy is pretty capable to engage and sink the Chinese Navy in the Strait of Taiwan. There isn't much that you can do against four aircraft carriers, and the US Navy conducted exercises aimed to show that they can deploy exactly that in the area.
You so sure about that given Chinese missile capability? The US Navy is projecting power across a big distance whereas the Chinese are firing from their mainland or their littoral waters. There's been some interesting talk about small, maneuverable green water fleets in the SCS versus the big WW2 style blue water fleets. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable making that bet if I was Taiwanese.
The US Navy would have Taiwan as the fifth, unsinkable carrier, so, along with their aviation the US could even redeploy a number of Air Force squadrons on the island (which would become a support center overnight - Taiwanese train for this since forever, the way Israeli train against a surprise attack from their neighbours). All of this under a "dome" of AEGIS ships and Patriot batteries.
My best guess is that a modern war of this kind will be over in a matter of days, maybe even less. You can be sure that every time a Chinese SSN sails there is a Virginia-class US sub with a torpedo already aimed at her and someone with the finger on the red button. This is SOP for the area. Much has been said about these "faster-than-light carrier-sinking" missiles, but I'm still unconvinced. The best hope for China is to somehow achieve strategic surprise - and that would need someone really, really asleep on the bridge.
No, what worries me is the "stealthy" expansion currently underway in the South China Sea, with all these small islands and atolls being steadily converted into potential military bases by China. Every then and now someone worries about that, but not enough IMHO.
I need to dig out his actual voting record, assuming the Dems haven't sealed it up like Obama's school records. I keep seeing people saying 'Biden was totally against invading Afghanistan!'.And just because I'm going for that Golden Asshole trophy.
https://twitter.com/elibremer/status/1427632616707088397
Take a good look, lads and lasses. Foreign policy success, right?
I am in the camp that this is not Biden's "fault" as much as it is DC's fault. Though Biden does shortsell his involvement with voting to go into afghanistan and the fact he was in the administration for 8 years where nothing was done to facilitate a withdrawal. It was ALWAYS going to be a disaster on withdrawal. I do not know if it would have been less with Trump. Tearing the bandaid off hurts. The afghani's were NEVER going to be able to hold off the Taliban, even if we were there for 100 years. Call the Taliban what you like, but they are firm in their beliefs, the people support them over the government, and they are willing to die fighting for what they believe... Set against the "government" of afghanis, which seemed to be okay with raging corruption and banging 10 year old boys as well as selling or surrendering US armaments as fast as they could get them...well...
You can train a chihuahua all you want to be an attack dog, but the first time it runs head long into a pitbull, its over. The USA tried to make a chihuahua into a pitbull. Waste of time, money, and human resources. Literally making the earth a worse place to be.
At least you're asking questions now instead of just presuming. And no, I'm not pro-Joe.Yawn. It hasn't dawned on you yet, has it? I find it pleasing to gain the hatred of the contemptible, like you.Look more of your nonsense where you erroneously suggest what others believe. You really are a worthless piece of shit and bad at guessing too.Someone got a little tingle from watching Afghanis fall off the plane, I see.Just keep sharing your delusions by lashing out at everybody that has stated they don't like what's happening just because you want to believe differently to support your narrative.Again, refer to my above post. The Afghanis were going to be fucked regardless of what happened.Now, Trump rolls into office, upsetting rice bowls left and right. He looks at Afghanistan and says, 'OK, enough is enough. Time to bring our boys home.' He makes a diplomatic overture to the Taliban, secures an exit date of May 1st, 2021, and informs the Afghani government that it's time they put their big boy pants on and stop fucking around.
Unfortunately, the PTB don't LIKE that, and Trump 'loses' the election. Biden rolls in, and because the derp state/proggy narrative is to NEVER EVER let Trump have a point in the win column, Biden's handlers opt to alter the deal. Except they're not Darth fuckin' Vader.
So if Trump was in charge, he would have handed the keys over to the Taliban three months sooner and in a more orderly fashion. I get how that is better than a disorderly withdrawal later, but I don't think that huge a difference as implied by the original post. The Taliban would still be in charge and millions of Afghans terrified.
But we spent twenty fucking years there. If they can't figure out that dealing with the Taliban was a bad deal in 20 years, then we can do nothing for them. It's polishing the turd. It's trying to 'save' a drug addict who hasn't hit his rock bottom yet.
My educated guess is that Trump would've pulled us out and left the keys. Taking with us any 'undesirables' (read: Afghani allies, interpreters, or women who didn't feel like putting on the burka again), as well as our equipment.
But this is clearly what you wanted, right? A confused mad dash for the doors, because our airlift capacity is being used to ferry illegals across the U.S. instead of being used to move ACTUAL allies and equipment that MY GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR.
So FUCK your snotty little 'oh so it would've been different'. There's thousands of actual AMERICANS marooned there now because of this incompetent pack of retards. Thanks so much for your vote. I hope you're proud of it.
Not really surprising though. You probably deluded yourself into believing Sleepy Joe's rambling incoherent speech (before he raced back off to hide) was 'stunning and brave'.
So were you Ridin' with Biden? Are you regretting it now?
But I seriously fuckin' doubt the departure would've been as shambolic under, well, anyone else. Hell, even Carter couldn't have fucked this one so badly.
Surely the US won't have to do much work; only 3% of the population is fully vaxxed in Afghanistan. Covid must be ravaging the whole country; especially with the new variant.The joke is actually your second point--what is Amwrica doing in Afghanistan.
Jokes aside, what is the formal explanation as to why America is in Afghanistan in the first place? I'm a bit out of the loop
Surely the US won't have to do much work; only 3% of the population is fully vaxxed in Afghanistan. Covid must be ravaging the whole country; especially with the new variant.The joke is actually your second point--what is Amwrica doing in Afghanistan.
Jokes aside, what is the formal explanation as to why America is in Afghanistan in the first place? I'm a bit out of the loop
As to the serious part of your post, far more Afghanis support wearing facial covers. Apparently it doesn't interfere with their ability to carry "assault" weapons.
The fun part has been watching people desperately try to spin this as anything other than a colossal clusterfuck. And they can't.But I seriously fuckin' doubt the departure would've been as shambolic under, well, anyone else. Hell, even Carter couldn't have fucked this one so badly.
I watched the "Tucker Carlson" and "Steve Hilton" videos. When their rant is basically indistinguishable from what the far-left (the honest ones) is saying, and, even more worryingly, they make sense, you just know that this fuck-up is for the ages.
It's like you've gone anti-conservative all of a sudden.Surely the US won't have to do much work; only 3% of the population is fully vaxxed in Afghanistan. Covid must be ravaging the whole country; especially with the new variant.The joke is actually your second point--what is Amwrica doing in Afghanistan.
Jokes aside, what is the formal explanation as to why America is in Afghanistan in the first place? I'm a bit out of the loop
As to the serious part of your post, far more Afghanis support wearing facial covers. Apparently it doesn't interfere with their ability to carry "assault" weapons.
Well, its because the ones with face covers dont carry the guns. But sure the ones who "support" wearing them, meaning making sure people wear them with the threat of violence if they do not, while of course they themselves do not have to wear them might be making a point you were not looking for.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/08/16/world/16afghanistan-palace/16afghanistan-palace-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
It's like you've gone anti-conservative all of a sudden.Surely the US won't have to do much work; only 3% of the population is fully vaxxed in Afghanistan. Covid must be ravaging the whole country; especially with the new variant.The joke is actually your second point--what is Amwrica doing in Afghanistan.
Jokes aside, what is the formal explanation as to why America is in Afghanistan in the first place? I'm a bit out of the loop
As to the serious part of your post, far more Afghanis support wearing facial covers. Apparently it doesn't interfere with their ability to carry "assault" weapons.
Well, its because the ones with face covers dont carry the guns. But sure the ones who "support" wearing them, meaning making sure people wear them with the threat of violence if they do not, while of course they themselves do not have to wear them might be making a point you were not looking for.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/08/16/world/16afghanistan-palace/16afghanistan-palace-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
That's a sweet gaming table. Their group is a little large tho. And they look like they have the worst end of the gamer-hygiene spectrum.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/08/16/world/16afghanistan-palace/16afghanistan-palace-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
That's a sweet gaming table. Their group is a little large tho. And they look like they have the worst end of the gamer-hygiene spectrum.
I think not, dice will bounce off that thing like a bb off a steel barrel.
I think not, dice will bounce off that thing like a bb off a steel barrel.
You're one of the dice-spikers? Savage.
I use a dice-roller-octagon thing. Or my deep-ass Savage Worlds box lid. Would work great on that table. The only problem would be the screams of the people they're burning in the cages outside. That would get annoying fast.
In their defense, they discovered that they had to rush there while they weren't still prepared for it.
I think not, dice will bounce off that thing like a bb off a steel barrel.
You're one of the dice-spikers? Savage.
I use a dice-roller-octagon thing. Or my deep-ass Savage Worlds box lid. Would work great on that table. The only problem would be the screams of the people they're burning in the cages outside. That would get annoying fast.
That and the overwhelming smell of the dudes who have not yet had their monthly bath after many nights of goat - love.
In their defense, they discovered that they had to rush there while they weren't still prepared for it.
That guy GMing looks like a weak-ass 5e Module GM. Just oozing lack of confidence.
He is just pissed he didnt get one of those sweet 'Murican rifles being handed over or dropped by the 'resistance' and is still stuck with that AK.
At least the premier of Taiwan is pushing back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-conflict-taiwan/taiwan-would-not-collapse-like-afghanistan-premier-says-idUSL4N2PO0VGQuote from: Premier Su Tseng-changWe also tell foreign forces who want to invade and grab Taiwan - don’t be deluded.
The key point, here, is merely technical: China hasn't the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan. Even if they build it (and I guess that they are improving, but honestly dunno) the U.S. Navy is pretty capable to engage and sink the Chinese Navy in the Strait of Taiwan. There isn't much that you can do against four aircraft carriers, and the US Navy conducted exercises aimed to show that they can deploy exactly that in the area. The message was clear.
The remaining question is "What happens if the war turns nuclear?" Rather worryingly, China is pursuing a nuclear buildup. It appears that they aim to reach parity with the US and Russia.
But a war for Taiwan will be an air and naval one. No troops on the ground (some could be deployed along the coast as deterrence). Of course the US and their allies could still fuck-up big time and one day wake up after China is already in Taiwan. It that case there will be nothing to do.
On the plus side Heroin will flood the markets and the prices will drop. Now the Chinese will have to compete with their shitty Fentanyl.I am not so sure about that. Wasnt it the Taliban that burned the fields and killed drug runners and warlords who dealt in the poppies? It's murky enough over there so I am not too sure, but I thought the USA allies were made up of the boy lovers and the drug dealers (we protected the poppies), but they all sort of merge together since the CIA and the USA basically trained and armed what later became the Taliban as well.
I dunno about you guys but my games are about to get buck-wild.
I am not so sure about that. Wasnt it the Taliban that burned the fields and killed drug runners and warlords who dealt in the poppies? It's murky enough over there so I am not too sure, but I thought the USA allies were made up of the boy lovers and the drug dealers (we protected the poppies), but they all sort of merge together since the CIA and the USA basically trained and armed what later became the Taliban as well.
China's "supersonic missle" is vaporware. Just like their so-called J-20 5th Gen fighter, is basically a mutant Russian Su30 with Chinese underpowered engines that aren't worth a shit and knockoff parts that make it sub-standard.
They could try to mount an invasion of Taiwan... but they'd fail. They could possibly do bombing runs but I wouldn't count on it. Their pissant aircraft carrier doesn't carry enough ordinance (half of one of our aging Nimitz carriers) and they don't have enough support craft to protect it. Meanwhile Japan does have a navy with more than enough to take on China's hodgepodge shit-ass navy and "airforce" (quotes because most of their airforce is 50's-60's era MiGs).
And of course... you know there's a chance America might do something. With Biden in power? Who the fuck knows.
I am not so sure about that. Wasnt it the Taliban that burned the fields and killed drug runners and warlords who dealt in the poppies? It's murky enough over there so I am not too sure, but I thought the USA allies were made up of the boy lovers and the drug dealers (we protected the poppies), but they all sort of merge together since the CIA and the USA basically trained and armed what later became the Taliban as well.
How am I supposed to run my super verisimilitude Opium Wars campaign without cheap opium?
The US Navy would have Taiwan as the fifth, unsinkable carrier, so, along with their aviation the US could even redeploy a number of Air Force squadrons on the island (which would become a support center overnight - Taiwanese train for this since forever, the way Israeli train against a surprise attack from their neighbours). All of this under a "dome" of AEGIS ships and Patriot batteries.A comparison between Taiwan and Israel is false. In Israel, the military is well funded, well-respected, and everyone serves. In Taiwan, the military is treated poorly, underfunded, and far too few of the younger generation are participating. And the military they have is exhausted and stressed out, because of the constant need to respond to almost daily incursions by the Chinese air force. Taiwan's public seem to be expecting the US to do everything, which is a mistake. If China rolls over Taiwan in a quick and successful invasion, the US will not rescue them. Taiwan needs be able to be able to hold out. The US will probably intervene in that case.
My best guess is that a modern war of this kind will be over in a matter of days, maybe even less. You can be sure that every time a Chinese SSN sails there is a Virginia-class US sub with a torpedo already aimed at her and someone with the finger on the red button. This is SOP for the area. Much has been said about these "faster-than-light carrier-sinking" missiles, but I'm still unconvinced. The best hope for China is to somehow achieve strategic surprise - and that would need someone really, really asleep on the bridge.
No, what worries me is the "stealthy" expansion currently underway in the South China Sea, with all these small islands and atolls being steadily converted into potential military bases by China. Every then and now someone worries about that, but not enough IMHO.China has 10,000 ships in the fleet they're using to invade the South China Sea. They're ostensibly civilian, but they're controlled by the military. China is both serious, and a serious threat. The US needs to be working more heavily with Australia and the Philippines to counter this.
In their defense, they discovered that they had to rush there while they weren't still prepared for it.
That guy GMing looks like a weak-ass 5e Module GM. Just oozing lack of confidence.
He is just pissed he didnt get one of those sweet 'Murican rifles being handed over or dropped by the 'resistance' and is still stuck with that AK.
He is just pissed he didnt get one of those sweet 'Murican rifles being handed over or dropped by the 'resistance' and is still stuck with that AK.
AK's are fine weapons sir. I'd take one over an M16, pound for pound (and I like M16's).
Nah he's pissed he's stuck GMing D&D5e. I can see it in his face. That's the look of Disadvantage and weak ass Feats, and HP Bloat.
The Taliban have put out a statement that they value women and are committed to their rights.This is deeply retarded. You don't fight grueling guerilla warfare and make death lists for collaborators if you are a great believer in human rights. Like if it turns out they actually just wanted to bring sunshine and rainbows to Afganistan, then sure.
It's not about respect for human rights, it's about their desire to be accepted as a legitimate state.The Taliban have put out a statement that they value women and are committed to their rights.This is deeply retarded. You don't fight grueling guerilla warfare and make death lists for collaborators if you are a great believer in human rights. Like if it turns out they actually just wanted to bring sunshine and rainbows to Afganistan, then sure.
I just find that EXTREMLY unlikely.
And much more likely that their media personalities are blowing hot smoke to the western reporter class that they know will say whatever they want them to say because they hate their home countries more then they hate them.
China's "supersonic missle" is vaporware. Just like their so-called J-20 5th Gen fighter, is basically a mutant Russian Su30 with Chinese underpowered engines that aren't worth a shit and knockoff parts that make it sub-standard.
They could try to mount an invasion of Taiwan... but they'd fail. They could possibly do bombing runs but I wouldn't count on it. Their pissant aircraft carrier doesn't carry enough ordinance (half of one of our aging Nimitz carriers) and they don't have enough support craft to protect it. Meanwhile Japan does have a navy with more than enough to take on China's hodgepodge shit-ass navy and "airforce" (quotes because most of their airforce is 50's-60's era MiGs).
And of course... you know there's a chance America might do something. With Biden in power? Who the fuck knows.
I never liked Trump and I don't like the current batch of Republicans (not their majority at least) but what just happened in Afghanistan is indefensible. Some images from this debacle are already forever burned in the collective conscious.
It's not about respect for human rights, it's about their desire to be accepted as a legitimate state.The Taliban have put out a statement that they value women and are committed to their rights.This is deeply retarded. You don't fight grueling guerilla warfare and make death lists for collaborators if you are a great believer in human rights. Like if it turns out they actually just wanted to bring sunshine and rainbows to Afganistan, then sure.
I just find that EXTREMLY unlikely.
And much more likely that their media personalities are blowing hot smoke to the western reporter class that they know will say whatever they want them to say because they hate their home countries more then they hate them.
If I was the Americans now, I'd definitely keep the troops out of these places (as they really don't want or like westerners) and spend that two trillion dollars on homeland security. Of course you've still got options for spec ops and drone sticks on strategic terrorist leaders or training camps.
We'll have to see. I'm rather skeptical, myself. But it's a remarkable change in tone, so there's at least some hope.It's not about respect for human rights, it's about their desire to be accepted as a legitimate state.The Taliban have put out a statement that they value women and are committed to their rights.This is deeply retarded. You don't fight grueling guerilla warfare and make death lists for collaborators if you are a great believer in human rights. Like if it turns out they actually just wanted to bring sunshine and rainbows to Afganistan, then sure.
I just find that EXTREMLY unlikely.
And much more likely that their media personalities are blowing hot smoke to the western reporter class that they know will say whatever they want them to say because they hate their home countries more then they hate them.
Or...just fucking lying and people just forgetting about it, because if human rights to recognized as a legitimate state is that big an issue there is a loooong list we can start scratching people off of. One of the tenants of Islam allows the use of deception when outnumbered, and there is NO version of women's rights that is compatible with Sharia that is also fully compatible with the USA version of human rights. That said, let the Taliban do them, and we do us.
The Taliban have put out a statement that they value women and are committed to their rights.This is deeply retarded. You don't fight grueling guerilla warfare and make death lists for collaborators if you are a great believer in human rights. Like if it turns out they actually just wanted to bring sunshine and rainbows to Afganistan, then sure.
I just find that EXTREMLY unlikely.
And much more likely that their media personalities are blowing hot smoke to the western reporter class that they know will say whatever they want them to say because they hate their home countries more then they hate them.
It's not about respect for human rights, it's about their desire to be accepted as a legitimate state.Their neihbors don't care about liberal rights. Only the west does whos ass they kicked so hard that its underpants is now in a bootmark print.
The "refugee" crisis in Europe was in large part by meddling with countries to the point where this had to happen. The trouble this has caused in those countries is obvious.
I also wonder how American veterans who suffered and fought must feel about it all. A curse on the ones responsible.
America indirectly, yes. But that elite pulls the strings, and have for some time. Again, they fight by proxy, and that elite wants ALL of western society undermined and destroyed. As long as that elite group runs things this will happen again.
In case you haven't noticed we here in America "must" take in loads of "refugees." The ones from south of our borders. If you are not American look up "sanctuary city."
Sanctuary cities are places illegal aliens can go and the immigration laws are not enforced.
Except Israel. They have walls armed with mace cannons. But we have to have an open door policy, as do Europe, Canada, etc.
Griswold is understating things. In a lot of cases, sanctuary cities have actively impeded INS/ICE from enforcing deportations upon criminals who are here illegally. Remember that next time some gormless twatwaffle wants to lecture about how 'interfering with the feds is illegal'.Sanctuary cities are places illegal aliens can go and the immigration laws are not enforced.
Hm... I wouldn't be a fan of that tbh. Mind you, pretty much everywhere is very soft on immigration these days.
The progress our administration made toward ending the war was possible because Taliban leaders understood that the consequences of violating the deal would be swift and severe. After our military took out Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani, and U.S. Special Forces killed the leader of ISIS, the Taliban had no doubt we would keep our promise.
But when Mr. Biden became president, he quickly announced that U.S. forces would remain in Afghanistan for an additional four months without a clear reason for doing so. There was no plan to transport the billions of dollars worth of American equipment recently captured by the Taliban, or evacuate the thousands of Americans now scrambling to escape Kabul, or facilitate the regional resettlement of the thousands of Afghan refugees who will now be seeking asylum in the U.S. with little or no vetting. Rather, it seems that the president simply didn’t want to appear to be abiding by the terms of a deal negotiated by his predecessor.
Once Mr. Biden broke the deal, the Taliban launched a major offensive against the Afghan government and seized Kabul. They knew there was no credible threat of force under this president.
The U.S. military could venture out to rescue them, assuming they can be located. But that’s a mission President Biden is unlikely to approve given his pledge not to put one more American soldier at risk and what must be a White House fear of American hostages in Taliban hands. He’s already had to redeploy more troops to the country than were there before he decided to withdraw in April.
That leaves negotiating with the Taliban. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Tuesday that the Taliban has agreed to allow “safe passage” for civilians, presumably Americans and foreign nationals. That’s good news, though we’d like to know what the U.S. agreed to in return. Formal recognition? Foreign aid?
I'm sure this moved up China's plans to invade Taiwan by a few years.
China will become the Taliban's biggest opium buyer.
China will use it to pacify their own country.
They tried to a biological weapon, but oops; it spread beyond their borders.
China will quietly go in a start taking Afghanistan's abundant natural resources. Then, it will their turn to get caught up in a war they can't win.
Taiwan won't have to worry about China.
If they're abandoned, who will ever want to work with the US in the future?
https://amplifiedbeing.com/2021/08/15/what-just-happened/?fbclid=IwAR3TFb52Joiho7_qdrFqrva15rM1khUSr2jVlKz_2e_hOiRqCKpy9dL08i8
Some insightful opinion from one of those Boots On The Ground.
I think the criticism of the ever-changing leadership priorities among the US military leadership, and their incentive to score points for the short-term prestige of their units, was on point. But the whole part about "what we really should have done..." is bullshit. There's no indication a consistent long term strategy would have miraculously made it work. The Middle East is a quagmire. It's not a quagmire of the US's making; the roots are in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But the US has definitely made it worse with the endless wars and interventions.https://amplifiedbeing.com/2021/08/15/what-just-happened/?fbclid=IwAR3TFb52Joiho7_qdrFqrva15rM1khUSr2jVlKz_2e_hOiRqCKpy9dL08i8
Some insightful opinion from one of those Boots On The Ground.
Is this insightful though? It's been a theme for... as long as I can remember... that bueracracy is ineffective and ephemeral, that "Empires go to Afghanistan to die", and that the boots on the ground get left holding the bag.
Maybe it's valuable to repeat it again, for people who haven't heard, but man, this was the argument around Afghanistan and the middle east in general long before 9/11. We didn't pay attention then, and we're unlikely to pay attention now.
Go to the middle east, fuck around for years, run away. Maybe things get better, usually they get worse. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I think the criticism of the ever-changing leadership priorities among the US military leadership, and their incentive to score points for the short-term prestige of their units, was on point. But the whole part about "what we really should have done..." is bullshit. There's no indication a consistent long term strategy would have miraculously made it work. The Middle East is a quagmire. It's not a quagmire of the US's making; the roots are in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But the US has definitely made it worse with the endless wars and interventions.https://amplifiedbeing.com/2021/08/15/what-just-happened/?fbclid=IwAR3TFb52Joiho7_qdrFqrva15rM1khUSr2jVlKz_2e_hOiRqCKpy9dL08i8
Some insightful opinion from one of those Boots On The Ground.
Is this insightful though? It's been a theme for... as long as I can remember... that bueracracy is ineffective and ephemeral, that "Empires go to Afghanistan to die", and that the boots on the ground get left holding the bag.
Maybe it's valuable to repeat it again, for people who haven't heard, but man, this was the argument around Afghanistan and the middle east in general long before 9/11. We didn't pay attention then, and we're unlikely to pay attention now.
Go to the middle east, fuck around for years, run away. Maybe things get better, usually they get worse. Lather, rinse, repeat.
America indirectly, yes. But that elite pulls the strings, and have for some time. Again, they fight by proxy, and that elite wants ALL of western society undermined and destroyed. As long as that elite group runs things this will happen again.
In case you haven't noticed we here in America "must" take in loads of "refugees." The ones from south of our borders. If you are not American look up "sanctuary city."
Yeah, all the elites have the keys and the US military are just the pawns.
I don't know what Sanctuary City is.
Well, unfortunately you guys should also take the brunt for Syria, Afghanistan and Libya because you guys invaded and left those places in the shit. Not really Europe's problem, although we will end up paying a heavy price.
I think the criticism of the ever-changing leadership priorities among the US military leadership, and their incentive to score points for the short-term prestige of their units, was on point. But the whole part about "what we really should have done..." is bullshit. There's no indication a consistent long term strategy would have miraculously made it work. The Middle East is a quagmire. It's not a quagmire of the US's making; the roots are in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But the US has definitely made it worse with the endless wars and interventions.https://amplifiedbeing.com/2021/08/15/what-just-happened/?fbclid=IwAR3TFb52Joiho7_qdrFqrva15rM1khUSr2jVlKz_2e_hOiRqCKpy9dL08i8
Some insightful opinion from one of those Boots On The Ground.
Is this insightful though? It's been a theme for... as long as I can remember... that bueracracy is ineffective and ephemeral, that "Empires go to Afghanistan to die", and that the boots on the ground get left holding the bag.
Maybe it's valuable to repeat it again, for people who haven't heard, but man, this was the argument around Afghanistan and the middle east in general long before 9/11. We didn't pay attention then, and we're unlikely to pay attention now.
Go to the middle east, fuck around for years, run away. Maybe things get better, usually they get worse. Lather, rinse, repeat.
https://amplifiedbeing.com/2021/08/15/what-just-happened/?fbclid=IwAR3TFb52Joiho7_qdrFqrva15rM1khUSr2jVlKz_2e_hOiRqCKpy9dL08i8
Some insightful opinion from one of those Boots On The Ground.
I didn't say Afghanistan was part of the Ottoman Empire, but its collapse destabilized the whole region and was the seed that led to things like the rise of Islamic extremism, and more broadly even things like the World Wars and rise of the Soviet Union. It's a big part of the reason why the whole Middle East has become a quagmire, and its problems seem so intractable.I think the criticism of the ever-changing leadership priorities among the US military leadership, and their incentive to score points for the short-term prestige of their units, was on point. But the whole part about "what we really should have done..." is bullshit. There's no indication a consistent long term strategy would have miraculously made it work. The Middle East is a quagmire. It's not a quagmire of the US's making; the roots are in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But the US has definitely made it worse with the endless wars and interventions.
This is generally true but Afghanistan was never part of the Ottoman empire. And regarding the Ottoman's, they kept control of unruly provinces by executing the leaders of said province every time shit started. They'd show up, arrest the local leaders, and kill them. Once they lost the ability to project power (ala Saudi Arabia) it started to fall apart.
I don't think such a strategy would have worked in Afghanistan, short of genocide.
I was not aware the USA invaded Syria.
I hope european nations are smart enough this time to just say no. .
It's astounding how the ruling class is able to pivot a tremendous loss -- Losing a 20 year war, with tens of thousands of casualties, trillions of dollars wasted, billions of dollars of military hardware lost to the enemy -- And turn it into an even bigger nightmare by immediately pivoting from their colossal failure to demanding that the US accept tens of thousands of Afghans into the US, without doing a damned thing to check if the people they are flying over at a tremendous cost of $500 million dollars are terrorists or not.
And after they fly them over here the culturally incompatible Afghan refugees overwhelmingly become wards of the state and a further drain on US society. None of the "experts" think it might be a better idea to relocate to any number of other regions like Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, or any other location that's closer and a better fit for the lifestyle and skills they have.
Sincerely wish we could airlift some useless politicians and NGO shitheads into Afghanistan right now.
Diversity is such a strength that it requires constant counseling and spending millions every day, and it's still not enough. Meanwhile, less diverse societies like Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, etc. are poor countries with unsafe communities and weak economies that about to fall apart due to their lack of vibrant communities of color/lgbt/islam/etc.
USA did wreck Libya, but when I say USA I mean the military-industrial machine.
And with 1 in 6 of the people in Denmark being immigrants or children of recent immigrants, it's not as diverse as the United States (the proverbial melting pot) but it's not insignificant.
Diversity is such a strength that it requires constant counseling and spending millions every day, and it's still not enough. Meanwhile, less diverse societies like Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, etc. are poor countries with unsafe communities and weak economies that about to fall apart due to their lack of vibrant communities of color/lgbt/islam/etc.
I'm afraid I've completely missed your point.
Denmark is one of the most LGBTQ-Friendly Study Abroad Destinations in the World (https://studyindenmark.dk/news/denmark-is-one-of-the-most-lgbtq-friendly-study-abroad-destinations-in-the-world) - In addition to consistently being rated as the happiest country in the world, Denmark takes second place as the most LGBTQ-friendly country on the planet.
And with 1 in 6 of the people in Denmark being immigrants or children of recent immigrants, it's not as diverse as the United States (the proverbial melting pot) but it's not insignificant.
Diversity is such a strength that it requires constant counseling and spending millions every day, and it's still not enough. Meanwhile, less diverse societies like Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, etc. are poor countries with unsafe communities and weak economies that about to fall apart due to their lack of vibrant communities of color/lgbt/islam/etc.
And with 1 in 6 of the people in Denmark being immigrants or children of recent immigrants, it's not as diverse as the United States (the proverbial melting pot) but it's not insignificant.
Id look into your data, but I know you argue in bad faith. If diversity made countries less happy then you would just discard the data and insist it be done anyway.
Regarding Afghan refugees: The obvious parallel is the airlift and relocation of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees after the Vietnam War. I would expect that the results will be similar here. There will be some friction and problems, but in general they become contributing citizens. Last year, SHARK started the thread "Vietnamese-Americans Rally for President Trump in California" (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/vietnamese-americans-rally-for-president-trump-in-california/) where he was very exuberant about Vietnamese-Americans.They still need to be vetted. Sky News Australia did a piece where they had a couple people documenting the employment history of people aiding their troops in Afghanistan, and how the government wasn't doing a thing about it and wasn't taking their calls. Given Biden's spectacular failure to prepare for anything, and very slow rate of VISAs being issued in the weeks before Kabul became an even worse Saigon, is there any reason to believe that all the people loaded onto the C-130s are being properly vetted, or that the Biden administration will do a thing for the tens of thousands left in the country?
I didn't say Afghanistan was part of the Ottoman Empire, but its collapse destabilized the whole region and was the seed that led to things like the rise of Islamic extremism, and more broadly even things like the World Wars and rise of the Soviet Union. It's a big part of the reason why the whole Middle East has become a quagmire, and its problems seem so intractable.I think the criticism of the ever-changing leadership priorities among the US military leadership, and their incentive to score points for the short-term prestige of their units, was on point. But the whole part about "what we really should have done..." is bullshit. There's no indication a consistent long term strategy would have miraculously made it work. The Middle East is a quagmire. It's not a quagmire of the US's making; the roots are in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But the US has definitely made it worse with the endless wars and interventions.
This is generally true but Afghanistan was never part of the Ottoman empire. And regarding the Ottoman's, they kept control of unruly provinces by executing the leaders of said province every time shit started. They'd show up, arrest the local leaders, and kill them. Once they lost the ability to project power (ala Saudi Arabia) it started to fall apart.
I don't think such a strategy would have worked in Afghanistan, short of genocide.
So because you claim he ignores the data, you choose to ignore the data???
Regarding Afghan refugees: The obvious parallel is the airlift and relocation of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees after the Vietnam War. I would expect that the results will be similar here. There will be some friction and problems, but in general they become contributing citizens. Last year, SHARK started the thread "Vietnamese-Americans Rally for President Trump in California" (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/vietnamese-americans-rally-for-president-trump-in-california/) where he was very exuberant about Vietnamese-Americans.
Regarding military supplies: My understanding is that the U.S. weapons in Taliban hands come from weapons that we supplied to the Afghan government forces over 20 years. That seems like a dilemma - should we have taken back weapons given to the Afghan government forces? That makes sense in hindsight, but especially if we had pulled out back in May, it would have seemed like even more of a betrayal of the Afghans who had supported us.Diversity is such a strength that it requires constant counseling and spending millions every day, and it's still not enough. Meanwhile, less diverse societies like Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, etc. are poor countries with unsafe communities and weak economies that about to fall apart due to their lack of vibrant communities of color/lgbt/islam/etc.
And with 1 in 6 of the people in Denmark being immigrants or children of recent immigrants, it's not as diverse as the United States (the proverbial melting pot) but it's not insignificant.
Id look into your data, but I know you argue in bad faith. If diversity made countries less happy then you would just discard the data and insist it be done anyway.
So because you claim he ignores the data, you choose to ignore the data??? I think comparing countries is always tricky because there are so many differences. One is never comparing apples to apples. Still, I think deadDMWalking is largely accurate regarding Denmark. Looking at SonTodoGato's other countries, it looks very mixed to me. Spain has a terrible economy, Japan has a strong economy but high suicide, etc.
Regarding military supplies: My understanding is that the U.S. weapons in Taliban hands come from weapons that we supplied to the Afghan government forces over 20 years. That seems like a dilemma - should we have taken back weapons given to the Afghan government forces? That makes sense in hindsight, but especially if we had pulled out back in May, it would have seemed like even more of a betrayal of the Afghans who had supported us.https://www.etvbharat.com/english/national/bharat/thanks-to-us-taliban-has-an-air-force-now-11-military-bases/na20210816182849150
Regarding Afghan refugees: The obvious parallel is the airlift and relocation of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees after the Vietnam War. I would expect that the results will be similar here. There will be some friction and problems, but in general they become contributing citizens. Last year, SHARK started the thread "Vietnamese-Americans Rally for President Trump in California" (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/vietnamese-americans-rally-for-president-trump-in-california/) where he was very exuberant about Vietnamese-Americans.
Regarding military supplies: My understanding is that the U.S. weapons in Taliban hands come from weapons that we supplied to the Afghan government forces over 20 years. That seems like a dilemma - should we have taken back weapons given to the Afghan government forces? That makes sense in hindsight, but especially if we had pulled out back in May, it would have seemed like even more of a betrayal of the Afghans who had supported us.Diversity is such a strength that it requires constant counseling and spending millions every day, and it's still not enough. Meanwhile, less diverse societies like Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, etc. are poor countries with unsafe communities and weak economies that about to fall apart due to their lack of vibrant communities of color/lgbt/islam/etc.
And with 1 in 6 of the people in Denmark being immigrants or children of recent immigrants, it's not as diverse as the United States (the proverbial melting pot) but it's not insignificant.
Id look into your data, but I know you argue in bad faith. If diversity made countries less happy then you would just discard the data and insist it be done anyway.
So because you claim he ignores the data, you choose to ignore the data??? I think comparing countries is always tricky because there are so many differences. One is never comparing apples to apples. Still, I think deadDMWalking is largely accurate regarding Denmark. Looking at SonTodoGato's other countries, it looks very mixed to me. Spain has a terrible economy, Japan has a strong economy but high suicide, etc.
Regarding military supplies: My understanding is that the U.S. weapons in Taliban hands come from weapons that we supplied to the Afghan government forces over 20 years. That seems like a dilemma - should we have taken back weapons given to the Afghan government forces? That makes sense in hindsight, but especially if we had pulled out back in May, it would have seemed like even more of a betrayal of the Afghans who had supported us.
https://www.etvbharat.com/english/national/bharat/thanks-to-us-taliban-has-an-air-force-now-11-military-bases/na20210816182849150
You make it sound like they got some poxy Army surplus.
It's one of the roots of the quagmire which has enmeshed the region, including Afghanistan. I said that in my first post.I didn't say Afghanistan was part of the Ottoman Empire, but its collapse destabilized the whole region and was the seed that led to things like the rise of Islamic extremism, and more broadly even things like the World Wars and rise of the Soviet Union. It's a big part of the reason why the whole Middle East has become a quagmire, and its problems seem so intractable.I think the criticism of the ever-changing leadership priorities among the US military leadership, and their incentive to score points for the short-term prestige of their units, was on point. But the whole part about "what we really should have done..." is bullshit. There's no indication a consistent long term strategy would have miraculously made it work. The Middle East is a quagmire. It's not a quagmire of the US's making; the roots are in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But the US has definitely made it worse with the endless wars and interventions.
This is generally true but Afghanistan was never part of the Ottoman empire. And regarding the Ottoman's, they kept control of unruly provinces by executing the leaders of said province every time shit started. They'd show up, arrest the local leaders, and kill them. Once they lost the ability to project power (ala Saudi Arabia) it started to fall apart.
I don't think such a strategy would have worked in Afghanistan, short of genocide.
Ok. But what does that have to do with Afghanistan?
Looking at SonTodoGato's other countries, it looks very mixed to me. Spain has a terrible economy, Japan has a strong economy but high suicide, etc.
Do you know where Bagram AFB is?Regarding military supplies: My understanding is that the U.S. weapons in Taliban hands come from weapons that we supplied to the Afghan government forces over 20 years. That seems like a dilemma - should we have taken back weapons given to the Afghan government forces? That makes sense in hindsight, but especially if we had pulled out back in May, it would have seemed like even more of a betrayal of the Afghans who had supported us.
https://www.etvbharat.com/english/national/bharat/thanks-to-us-taliban-has-an-air-force-now-11-military-bases/na20210816182849150
You make it sound like they got some poxy Army surplus.
I don't see where you get that from what I wrote. That article seems to back up exactly what I said. The weapons in the Taliban hands are those given to the Afghan government forces over two decades of support. Yes, those arms are substantial - since over the twenty years, we have spent billions in training and arming the Afghan army.
In retrospect, we shouldn't have spent so much to arm them in the first place. But that's a long-term strategic problem, not something from this year.
In terms of how to handle the withdrawal (which Trump had agreed to), the dilemma is whether we should have tried to reclaim or destroy the weapons of the Afghan army when we withdrew. I maintain that if we took away our allies' weapons, it would have seemed like an even greater betrayal to them. Maybe we should have done it anyway, but it's not an easy choice.
If they're abandoned, who will ever want to work with the US in the future?
Looking at SonTodoGato's other countries, it looks very mixed to me. Spain has a terrible economy, Japan has a strong economy but high suicide, etc.
Japan has a lower suicide rate than other countries; even lower than the US. And I'm sure the reason why Spain's economy went through a crisis is due to its lack of young and vibrant Somali refugees and not labor regulations...
Why would diversity strangthen any society? How does it work, exactly? What is the perfect diversity ratio? It doesn't make any sense. Europe does not benefit from muslim immigration, USA does not benefit from them either.
As far as diversity strengthening a society -- I'm not saying that it always does or always doesn't. It depends on the case. I think it has the potential to strengthen for similar reasons for why trade is good for an economy. By having internal populations with differences, those internal populations can exchange and benefit from their differing strengths and skills.
I'm depressed to see that South Korea's suicide rate has risen even higher while Japan's has been dropping. South Korea is another non-diverse society.)
Linking lack of diversity to suicide is idiotic. Im sure making a toxic job market even more competitive is exactly what South Korea needs.
For every ten percentage point reduction in own-group density, the relative odds of reporting psychotic experiences increased 1.07 times (95% CI 1.01–1.14, P = 0.03 (trend)) for the total minority ethnic sample. In general, people living in areas of lower own-group density experienced greater social adversity that was in turn associated with reporting psychotic experiences.
As far as diversity strengthening a society -- I'm not saying that it always does or always doesn't. It depends on the case. I think it has the potential to strengthen for similar reasons for why trade is good for an economy. By having internal populations with differences, those internal populations can exchange and benefit from their differing strengths and skills.
The problems with illegal and unlimited immigration is not a failure of civic nationalism; it's a failure to apply civic nationalism.
As far as diversity strengthening a society -- I'm not saying that it always does or always doesn't. It depends on the case. I think it has the potential to strengthen for similar reasons for why trade is good for an economy. By having internal populations with differences, those internal populations can exchange and benefit from their differing strengths and skills.
Yet the data you were asserting is so important refutes this idea.
1. On average, social trust is lower in more ethnically diverse contexts. However, the rather modest size of the difference implies that apocalyptic claims regarding the severe threat of ethnic diversity for social trust in contemporary societies are exaggerated.Source: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052918-020708
2. The negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust applies for all types of trust, but there is substantial variation in strength between types. The negative relationship is strongest for trust in neighbors, intermediate for in-group trust and generalized social trust, and weakest (and statistically insignificant) for out-group trust. Ethnic diversity matters more for trust in people in one’s immediate residential setting, but the effect also extends beyond this setting to trust in other people in general.
I'm depressed to see that South Korea's suicide rate has risen even higher while Japan's has been dropping. South Korea is another non-diverse society.)
Meanwhile Seoul looks distinctly Korean, clean, low crime, and high trust while Paris looks like this:
Regarding military supplies: My understanding is that the U.S. weapons in Taliban hands come from weapons that we supplied to the Afghan government forces over 20 years. That seems like a dilemma - should we have taken back weapons given to the Afghan government forces? That makes sense in hindsight, but especially if we had pulled out back in May, it would have seemed like even more of a betrayal of the Afghans who had supported us.
https://www.etvbharat.com/english/national/bharat/thanks-to-us-taliban-has-an-air-force-now-11-military-bases/na20210816182849150
You make it sound like they got some poxy Army surplus.
I don't see where you get that from what I wrote. That article seems to back up exactly what I said. The weapons in the Taliban hands are those given to the Afghan government forces over two decades of support. Yes, those arms are substantial - since over the twenty years, we have spent billions in training and arming the Afghan army.
In retrospect, we shouldn't have spent so much to arm them in the first place. But that's a long-term strategic problem, not something from this year.
In terms of how to handle the withdrawal (which Trump had agreed to), the dilemma is whether we should have tried to reclaim or destroy the weapons of the Afghan army when we withdrew. I maintain that if we took away our allies' weapons, it would have seemed like an even greater betrayal to them. Maybe we should have done it anyway, but it's not an easy choice.
Meanwhile Seoul looks distinctly Korean, clean, low crime, and high trust while Paris looks like this:
I made a comment about monocultures being stronger than diverse culture (on another thread)...I think the Taliban is pretty much proving that one out. I think China will also prove it out over the next 10 years. This is not to say I prefer a monoculture, but anyone who thinks having people on one team who argue and fight with one another is going to outperform a team where the members work together and have the same goals/worldview is simply not being objective.
Meanwhile Seoul looks distinctly Korean, clean, low crime, and high trust while Paris looks like this:
As someone who, before Covid, worked in Paris for years and has as his hobby walking around, I can say that those pictures look suspiciously like cherry picking - and I was someone strolling less than a kilometer from Charlie Hebdo when they were hit by the terrorists.
I made a comment about monocultures being stronger than diverse culture (on another thread)...I think the Taliban is pretty much proving that one out. I think China will also prove it out over the next 10 years. This is not to say I prefer a monoculture, but anyone who thinks having people on one team who argue and fight with one another is going to outperform a team where the members work together and have the same goals/worldview is simply not being objective.
Here's your problem: you don't get 'competitive-cooperative culture' unless you've got some sort of shared cultural foundation to work from.I made a comment about monocultures being stronger than diverse culture (on another thread)...I think the Taliban is pretty much proving that one out. I think China will also prove it out over the next 10 years. This is not to say I prefer a monoculture, but anyone who thinks having people on one team who argue and fight with one another is going to outperform a team where the members work together and have the same goals/worldview is simply not being objective.
I'd say this is basically 100% wrong. A competitive-cooperative culture outperforms a monoculture just about every time. For example, the rise of Western Europe to a colonial power was tied with competition between European powers within a generally cooperative framework. The United States with a federated system also allows 50 versions of the same goal - ideally the best methods propagate and become universal.
I don't know that I would ever consider a period of US History to reflect a 'monoculture'. I know that I would not consider any other nation since 1830 to have 'outperformed' the United States in a meaningful way.
don't see any evidence that it does.Then you followed up with
From what I can tell of the research, broadly, greater ethnic diversity has a relationship with greater distrust in one's neighbors and with certain forms of crime. But that isn't the whole of what makes a society better or worse. There are a ton of other social values.
In simpler terms, I'm quite familiar with the low-diversity society of South Korea, and while I love my relatives there, I don't find the overall society generally better.
France has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100K which is higher than South Korea's of 0.6 per 100K, but they're both quite low compared to the rest of the world
I'm not claiming that any of these are inherent from ethnic diversity, but that's my point. Comparing countries over ethnic diversity doesn't show a whole lot.
As someone who, before Covid, worked in Paris for years and has as his hobby walking around, I can say that those pictures look suspiciously like cherry picking - and I was someone strolling less than a kilometer from Charlie Hebdo when they were hit by the terrorists."
The problems with illegal and unlimited immigration is not a failure of civic nationalism; it's a failure to apply civic nationalism.
I made a comment about monocultures being stronger than diverse culture (on another thread)...I think the Taliban is pretty much proving that one out. I think China will also prove it out over the next 10 years. This is not to say I prefer a monoculture, but anyone who thinks having people on one team who argue and fight with one another is going to outperform a team where the members work together and have the same goals/worldview is simply not being objective.
I'd say this is basically 100% wrong. A competitive-cooperative culture outperforms a monoculture just about every time. For example, the rise of Western Europe to a colonial power was tied with competition between European powers within a generally cooperative framework. The United States with a federated system also allows 50 versions of the same goal - ideally the best methods propagate and become universal.
I don't know that I would ever consider a period of US History to reflect a 'monoculture'. I know that I would not consider any other nation since 1830 to have 'outperformed' the United States in a meaningful way.
I made a comment about monocultures being stronger than diverse culture (on another thread)...I think the Taliban is pretty much proving that one out. I think China will also prove it out over the next 10 years. This is not to say I prefer a monoculture, but anyone who thinks having people on one team who argue and fight with one another is going to outperform a team where the members work together and have the same goals/worldview is simply not being objective.
The Taliban and the CCP are totalitarian governments that don't permit dissent, but their societies are not monocultures like Japan or South Korea. Particularly for Afghanistan, it's quite the opposite. Afghanistan has always been a diverse crossroads in between major powers, with different languages spoken, different traditions, and so forth between the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and others. It's trying to unite those different cultures that has been a challenge for colonial governments.
As for totalitarian governments being stronger - I think that is short-sighted. There is an tactical advantage to not allowing dissent - it permits more swift and decisive actions. However, I think in the long-term, totalitarian governments have proven less stable than democracies. Totalitarian regimes like the Nazis, the Soviets, and many others have come and gone, with governments frequently falling apart within a generation.
The problems with illegal and unlimited immigration is not a failure of civic nationalism; it's a failure to apply civic nationalism.
How would you go about enforcing this? How do you know which people have the same values? Do African americans or the children of Hispanics/Asians agree with those values? It's unfalsifiable; if they assimilate, they had compatible values. If they didn't, they weren't true Americans. Ultimately, you still have division based on identity and different demographic trends (crime, academic performance, employment, welfare, abortion, music, etc.) and voting patterns in spite of decades of attempts to bring them all together. If this were a marriage, they would be talking about a divorce.
If the majority of the country became mostly Hispanic and not Anglo-Saxon (which is happening) would the country be the same? how about African americans or Asians? I think deep down we all know that America is a bit more than just a few political institutions, and culture, lifestyle and politics would change if the people change. I can guarantee you none of them left their identity behind the moment they crossed the border, legally or illegally.
The Taliban and the CCP are totalitarian governments that don't permit dissent, but their societies are not monocultures like Japan or South Korea. Particularly for Afghanistan, it's quite the opposite. Afghanistan has always been a diverse crossroads in between major powers, with different languages spoken, different traditions, and so forth between the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and others. It's trying to unite those different cultures that has been a challenge for colonial governments.The Taliban dominates the region because their culture is stronger, they ARE a monoculture. For some strange reason, you read Taliban and talk to me about afghanistan... missing the point because of afghanistan's very diverse cultures, they got their shit pushed in by the monoculture (Taliban).
As for totalitarian governments being stronger - I think that is short-sighted. There is an tactical advantage to not allowing dissent - it permits more swift and decisive actions. However, I think in the long-term, totalitarian governments have proven less stable than democracies. Totalitarian regimes like the Nazis, the Soviets, and many others have come and gone, with governments frequently falling apart within a generation.Regarding totalitarians being more short lived than democracies.... Do you think human history started in the colonial ages? Because unless you do, saying democracies are historically proven out versus totalitarian governments is a complete lack of historical knowledge or context.
And I agree, immigrants like Italian-Americans didn't leave their identity behind the moment they crossed the border. The differing identities of them and other immigrants changed the culture of the U.S. But culture always changes. That's going to happen regardless of immigration.
Meanwhile Seoul looks distinctly Korean, clean, low crime, and high trust while Paris looks like this:
As someone who, before Covid, worked in Paris for years and has as his hobby walking around, I can say that those pictures look suspiciously like cherry picking - and I was someone strolling less than a kilometer from Charlie Hebdo when they were hit by the terrorists.
It also ignores the fact that that's kind of a French (or at least Parisian) thing to do. "They're rioting in Paris again." "Oh is it Tuesday already?"
The Taliban and the CCP are totalitarian governments that don't permit dissent, but their societies are not monocultures like Japan or South Korea. Particularly for Afghanistan, it's quite the opposite. Afghanistan has always been a diverse crossroads in between major powers, with different languages spoken, different traditions, and so forth between the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and others. It's trying to unite those different cultures that has been a challenge for colonial governments.The Taliban dominates the region because their culture is stronger, they ARE a monoculture. For some strange reason, you read Taliban and talk to me about afghanistan... missing the point because of afghanistan's very diverse cultures, they got their shit pushed in by the monoculture (Taliban).
The Taliban aren't an independent culture to themselves. They are a broad internal political/religious movement within Afghanistan, not a separate foreign society that has forced itself onto Afghan society. Saying that the Taliban beat Afghanistan is off-base, mixing apples and oranges. The Taliban beat the U.S.-backed Republic of Afghanistan government.As for totalitarian governments being stronger - I think that is short-sighted. There is an tactical advantage to not allowing dissent - it permits more swift and decisive actions. However, I think in the long-term, totalitarian governments have proven less stable than democracies. Totalitarian regimes like the Nazis, the Soviets, and many others have come and gone, with governments frequently falling apart within a generation.Regarding totalitarians being more short lived than democracies.... Do you think human history started in the colonial ages? Because unless you do, saying democracies are historically proven out versus totalitarian governments is a complete lack of historical knowledge or context.
My impression was that the core issue is nations going into the future. i.e. What is best going forward? For that point, I think the last two centuries are more relevant than medieval or ancient times. Though I'd agree that it isn't completely clear. If you want to talk about all of history, that's a different question.
For a modern country, I think that having a strong national identity is important for stability. However, I don't think that cultural and ethnic unity is important. Multicultural countries seem to be doing roughly as well as single-culture countries.
For a modern country, I think that having a strong national identity is important for stability. However, I don't think that cultural and ethnic unity is important. Multicultural countries seem to be doing roughly as well as single-culture countries.
In the United States, national identity is shot to shit. I think you are also reaching when you say multicultural countries. Meaning you are calling some countries multicultural that are run largely from the perspective of the dominant culture. I also add, The Taliban is radical islamisists of Afghanistan. They beat the soviet union, they beat the USA, and they beat the shitlords (Norther alliance of pedos and drug dealers/warlords the USA left in charge) The Taliban DOMINATES the country and is in charge. If you are telling me islamic fundamentalists are NOT a monoculture, I think we have different definitions here, and maybe we should make sure we are talking about the same things.
Edited to add: I think the next 20 years will settle who is right about this. hopefully we are both still breathing and the interwebs will be here for you to tell me how wrong I am.
For a modern country, I think that having a strong national identity is important for stability. However, I don't think that cultural and ethnic unity is important. Multicultural countries seem to be doing roughly as well as single-culture countries.
In the United States, national identity is shot to shit. I think you are also reaching when you say multicultural countries. Meaning you are calling some countries multicultural that are run largely from the perspective of the dominant culture. I also add, The Taliban is radical islamisists of Afghanistan. They beat the soviet union, they beat the USA, and they beat the shitlords (Norther alliance of pedos and drug dealers/warlords the USA left in charge) The Taliban DOMINATES the country and is in charge. If you are telling me islamic fundamentalists are NOT a monoculture, I think we have different definitions here, and maybe we should make sure we are talking about the same things.
Edited to add: I think the next 20 years will settle who is right about this. hopefully we are both still breathing and the interwebs will be here for you to tell me how wrong I am.
Well, I've been around here on this board for 15 years and 4 months thus far. I also hope we are both still breathing and around to reflect on this 20 years from now.
Do you have a specific prediction about 20 years from now?
I don't have anything very specific, but I have some limits. I don't think Western Civilization will collapse or that the U.S. will have widespread civil war. I think more likely, people will be screaming that the latest viral video shows how civil war is just around the corner while still on their cell phones. Life in First World countries is still vastly better (including both necessities and freedoms) than in warzones or totalitarian backwaters, and most citizens have no stomach for actual violence. I think the negativity of social media and polarization will get worse for a few years, then bottom out as the push against it goes mainstream. (I'm actually very curious now about how Japan managed to drop their suicide rate so much in just 10 years. I wonder if mental health support will change things.)
China becomes the dominant world power...China is probably close to the apex of their power, right now. The one child policy means they're facing a demographic time bomb, they've badly fucked up their environment, their growth rate was tanking before covid, GDP is a poor measure of the ability to exert power so China's ostensible parity with the US is mostly an illusion, and China is physically in a poor strategic position.
China becomes the dominant world power...China is probably close to the apex of their power, right now. The one child policy means they're facing a demographic time bomb, they've badly fucked up their environment, their growth rate was tanking before covid, GDP is a poor measure of the ability to exert power so China's ostensible parity with the US is mostly an illusion, and China is physically in a poor strategic position.
The Belt and Road initiative is basically a huge wealth transfer to other countries, which are consistently behind in paying China back. It's a money sink, and they're running out of money. They switched to a two-child policy in 2015, but it doesn't appear to have worked. The birthrate still seems to be in decline, even without the restriction.China becomes the dominant world power...China is probably close to the apex of their power, right now. The one child policy means they're facing a demographic time bomb, they've badly fucked up their environment, their growth rate was tanking before covid, GDP is a poor measure of the ability to exert power so China's ostensible parity with the US is mostly an illusion, and China is physically in a poor strategic position.
They are RAPIDLY colonizing Africa and parts of South America. They also own several countries, I have a feeling they are about to encourage producing babies at full tilt, with all sorts of Hiteresque sorts of propaganda about strengthening the nation.
Hey I will say the same I did to jhkim, I hope in 20 you point out how wrong I was. I would also say though, even if they are at the peak of power, all they have to do is slide down slower than we do.
The Belt and Road initiative is basically a huge wealth transfer to other countries, which are consistently behind in paying China back. It's a money sink, and they're running out of money. They switched to a two-child policy in 2015, but it doesn't appear to have worked. The birthrate still seems to be in decline, even without the restriction.China becomes the dominant world power...China is probably close to the apex of their power, right now. The one child policy means they're facing a demographic time bomb, they've badly fucked up their environment, their growth rate was tanking before covid, GDP is a poor measure of the ability to exert power so China's ostensible parity with the US is mostly an illusion, and China is physically in a poor strategic position.
They are RAPIDLY colonizing Africa and parts of South America. They also own several countries, I have a feeling they are about to encourage producing babies at full tilt, with all sorts of Hiteresque sorts of propaganda about strengthening the nation.
Hey I will say the same I did to jhkim, I hope in 20 you point out how wrong I was. I would also say though, even if they are at the peak of power, all they have to do is slide down slower than we do.
China is a real threat at the moment and for the next decade or so, but long term they're hobbled by a number of factors.
Greetings!That's because their demographics are so spectacularly fucked, at one point they were buying mail order brides from North Korea.
China has recently instituted a three-child policy, as well as encouraging more and more breeding.
China certainly does have some problems, but I wouldn't expect any dramatic decline in their power, wealth, and influence anytime soon.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
And I agree, immigrants like Italian-Americans didn't leave their identity behind the moment they crossed the border. The differing identities of them and other immigrants changed the culture of the U.S. But culture always changes. That's going to happen regardless of immigration.
Different =/= Better.
Regardless, anything can be bad if taken to a stupid extreme. And diversity as I have mentioned many times before is viewed as a VIRTUE in it of itself when at best its a neutral trait.
Diversity can bring new perspectives, or it could rip apart existing sociatal sctructures. Its not a superpower or an inherent strength.
And I agree, immigrants like Italian-Americans didn't leave their identity behind the moment they crossed the border. The differing identities of them and other immigrants changed the culture of the U.S. But culture always changes. That's going to happen regardless of immigration.
Different =/= Better.
Regardless, anything can be bad if taken to a stupid extreme. And diversity as I have mentioned many times before is viewed as a VIRTUE in it of itself when at best its a neutral trait.
Diversity can bring new perspectives, or it could rip apart existing sociatal sctructures. Its not a superpower or an inherent strength.
There are way too many variables and way too many criteria to say whether diversity as a whole is objectively good or bad or neutral. It's too broad and nebulous a question to answer objectively. But it seems to me that SonTodoGato, deathknight4044, and oggsmash are arguing that diversity is an inherent weakness.
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.
I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.
I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.
I am not arguing that. I am saying there is a point where diversity for its own sake, and going to a point where some common national bonds are no longer evident is a negative. When you grew up, immigration quotas from the 3rd world were being filled. Before 1965 Europe was where the massive flow of immigration was accepted. Your thoughts on success have absolutely zero means to be proven. Do you have some evidence the USA was struggling somehow before 1965? I think you could be right, but it is only a feeling, there is zero proof. Changing immigration from massively predominantly european to developing world quotas via the Hart-Seller act may have made the USA better, I just know it can not be proven one way or the other.
All that sort of behavior is unnerving to people who wonder why, when under color of LAW it is perfectly legal to NOT hire a white person due solely to race alone and hire another person.
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.
I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.
I am not arguing that. I am saying there is a point where diversity for its own sake, and going to a point where some common national bonds are no longer evident is a negative. When you grew up, immigration quotas from the 3rd world were being filled. Before 1965 Europe was where the massive flow of immigration was accepted. Your thoughts on success have absolutely zero means to be proven. Do you have some evidence the USA was struggling somehow before 1965? I think you could be right, but it is only a feeling, there is zero proof. Changing immigration from massively predominantly european to developing world quotas via the Hart-Seller act may have made the USA better, I just know it can not be proven one way or the other.
I agree that it can't be proven - especially since what makes the USA "better" is completely subjective. What I'm pushing back against is the idea that immigration of non-Europeans makes the USA worse. Specifically:
(1) Even if one disagrees with it, the positive ideal of the USA as a diverse melting pot isn't a new-fangled SJW thing. It's been a mainstream traditional idea for a long time. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 passed with a strong majority from both parties (ref) (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h125).
(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.All that sort of behavior is unnerving to people who wonder why, when under color of LAW it is perfectly legal to NOT hire a white person due solely to race alone and hire another person.
In the U.S.? The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.
https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/
https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/
As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16)) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.
I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.
I am not arguing that. I am saying there is a point where diversity for its own sake, and going to a point where some common national bonds are no longer evident is a negative. When you grew up, immigration quotas from the 3rd world were being filled. Before 1965 Europe was where the massive flow of immigration was accepted. Your thoughts on success have absolutely zero means to be proven. Do you have some evidence the USA was struggling somehow before 1965? I think you could be right, but it is only a feeling, there is zero proof. Changing immigration from massively predominantly european to developing world quotas via the Hart-Seller act may have made the USA better, I just know it can not be proven one way or the other.
I agree that it can't be proven - especially since what makes the USA "better" is completely subjective. What I'm pushing back against is the idea that immigration of non-Europeans makes the USA worse. Specifically:
(1) Even if one disagrees with it, the positive ideal of the USA as a diverse melting pot isn't a new-fangled SJW thing. It's been a mainstream traditional idea for a long time. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 passed with a strong majority from both parties (ref) (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h125).
(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.All that sort of behavior is unnerving to people who wonder why, when under color of LAW it is perfectly legal to NOT hire a white person due solely to race alone and hire another person.
In the U.S.? The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.
https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/
https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/
As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16)) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.
Hey man, my phone rang. 10 years ago called and said it was for you.
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.
I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.
I am not arguing that. I am saying there is a point where diversity for its own sake, and going to a point where some common national bonds are no longer evident is a negative. When you grew up, immigration quotas from the 3rd world were being filled. Before 1965 Europe was where the massive flow of immigration was accepted. Your thoughts on success have absolutely zero means to be proven. Do you have some evidence the USA was struggling somehow before 1965? I think you could be right, but it is only a feeling, there is zero proof. Changing immigration from massively predominantly european to developing world quotas via the Hart-Seller act may have made the USA better, I just know it can not be proven one way or the other.
I agree that it can't be proven - especially since what makes the USA "better" is completely subjective. What I'm pushing back against is the idea that immigration of non-Europeans makes the USA worse. Specifically:
(1) Even if one disagrees with it, the positive ideal of the USA as a diverse melting pot isn't a new-fangled SJW thing. It's been a mainstream traditional idea for a long time. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 passed with a strong majority from both parties (ref) (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h125).
(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.All that sort of behavior is unnerving to people who wonder why, when under color of LAW it is perfectly legal to NOT hire a white person due solely to race alone and hire another person.
In the U.S.? The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.
https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/
https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/
As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16)) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.
Hey man, my phone rang. 10 years ago called and said it was for you.
Did you tell them to buy BitCoin? Real Estate? Uber stock?
I told em to call 20 years back and tell em NO to invading Iraq and afghanistan.20 years back said you're un-American, and support terrorists.
I told em to call 20 years back and tell em NO to invading Iraq and afghanistan.20 years back said you're un-American, and support terrorists.
Opposing the right things before everyone else does usually doesn't go over very well.
The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.
https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/
https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/
As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16)) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.
Hey man, my phone rang. 10 years ago called and said it was for you.
A Pennsylvania federal jury said The Geo Group Inc. should pay $3.6 million to a couple who claimed they lost their jobs with the private prison operator because one of them complained about anti-white racial discrimination and harassment.Source: https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/1409498/jury-awards-prison-workers-3-6m-in-reverse-race-bias-case
After a five-day trial, the jury found the company, which ran the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, should cough up about $2.6 million to Brandy Norfolk and more than $900,000 to Stephen Norfolk, according to a verdict issued July 30 and made public Tuesday.
Stephen Norfolk, who is white, said he faced racial discrimination and a hostile work environment, as well as retaliation for reporting his concerns. He was awarded $275,000 in back pay, $250,000 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages, according to the verdict.
A federal judge has ruled that Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division must rehire Mike Goza, the technician who was fired after a public backlash over offensive Facebook statements he made about African Americans and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.Source: https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/2019/06/18/mike-goza-case-judge-rules-favor-mlgw-worker-memphis-offensive-remarks-facebook/1482185001/
...
The judge ruled MLGW must also give Goza $160,000 in back pay and benefits, plus $30,000 in compensatory damages.
...
Goza, who is white, had also claimed racial discrimination, arguing the utility had acted differently in the case of a black MLGW worker who went on a Facebook rant in which he advocated violence, including killing Asian store owners. That worker got a three-day suspension.
The judge cited the case of that other worker and agreed with Goza's racial discrimination argument.
The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.
https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/
https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/
As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16)) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.
Hey man, my phone rang. 10 years ago called and said it was for you.
Prop 16 was defeated just last November. OK, fine my lawsuit examples were from non-time-based Internet search and were from ten years ago. Here are some more recent successful white discrimination lawsuits:QuoteA Pennsylvania federal jury said The Geo Group Inc. should pay $3.6 million to a couple who claimed they lost their jobs with the private prison operator because one of them complained about anti-white racial discrimination and harassment.Source: https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/1409498/jury-awards-prison-workers-3-6m-in-reverse-race-bias-case
After a five-day trial, the jury found the company, which ran the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, should cough up about $2.6 million to Brandy Norfolk and more than $900,000 to Stephen Norfolk, according to a verdict issued July 30 and made public Tuesday.
Stephen Norfolk, who is white, said he faced racial discrimination and a hostile work environment, as well as retaliation for reporting his concerns. He was awarded $275,000 in back pay, $250,000 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages, according to the verdict.QuoteA federal judge has ruled that Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division must rehire Mike Goza, the technician who was fired after a public backlash over offensive Facebook statements he made about African Americans and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.Source: https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/2019/06/18/mike-goza-case-judge-rules-favor-mlgw-worker-memphis-offensive-remarks-facebook/1482185001/
...
The judge ruled MLGW must also give Goza $160,000 in back pay and benefits, plus $30,000 in compensatory damages.
...
Goza, who is white, had also claimed racial discrimination, arguing the utility had acted differently in the case of a black MLGW worker who went on a Facebook rant in which he advocated violence, including killing Asian store owners. That worker got a three-day suspension.
The judge cited the case of that other worker and agreed with Goza's racial discrimination argument.
And I agree, immigrants like Italian-Americans didn't leave their identity behind the moment they crossed the border. The differing identities of them and other immigrants changed the culture of the U.S. But culture always changes. That's going to happen regardless of immigration.
Different =/= Better.
Regardless, anything can be bad if taken to a stupid extreme. And diversity as I have mentioned many times before is viewed as a VIRTUE in it of itself when at best its a neutral trait.
Diversity can bring new perspectives, or it could rip apart existing sociatal sctructures. Its not a superpower or an inherent strength.
There are way too many variables and way too many criteria to say whether diversity as a whole is objectively good or bad or neutral. It's too broad and nebulous a question to answer objectively. But it seems to me that SonTodoGato, deathknight4044, and oggsmash are arguing that diversity is an inherent weakness.
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.
I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.
(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.
(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.
What's good for you isn't necessarily good for the natives. OTOH my experience in the USA was that the East-Asians I met were clearly full Americans in every way that mattered, and made a lot of positive contributions (and few negative - East-Asian violent crime rates are ca 1/3 that of white Americans, ca 1/30 that of African-Americans); if I were American I'd be in favour of (some, limited) east-Asian immigration. Some other groups are more marginal, and some like Somalis are a huge net negative for everyone else. Afghans seem a lot closer to Somalis than Koreans. https://www.unz.com/isteve/new-dutch-study-of-cost-of-refugees/
I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.
That was the policy of the US for most of its history; immigration restricted to "white men of good character" or qualified non-whites who were expected to assimilate. Quite restrictive, not that diverse. It was only in 1965, shortly after the victory of the forces of internationalism and socialism and the defeat of nationalism that the US decided to change its policy for reasons I ignore. Ever since then, diversity started to mean something else.
Just to clarify, migration benefitted the US largely and there is nothing wrong about there being a variety of cultures and identities who coexist in peace. The problem is the forced diversity which serves a political purpose. It's diversity for the sake of it and the benefit of politicians.
My questions are:
1) How/Why does diversity improve a society? What is the ideal ratio of ethnicities?
2) If migrants don't leave their identity behind... How can you expect them to agree on fundamental values and see past race?
3) How did the US manage to be great before 1965? How did any other country with less diversity?
4) Would you like to live in a very diverse place? Or would you rather stay in a community of people with a similar background to yours?
5) Would you want Korea to be diversified to the point where ethnic Koreans become a minority? (this one was meant for JHkim specifically, but it can apply to anyone. I do not ask this in a demeaning way, and I have no animosity against anyone. I'm just illustrating a point; ethnicity matters to people)
You're equating "Anglo-Saxon" with "white" here, but they mean different things. Compared to its rivals at the time, the U.S. from its founding through 1925 was more open and diverse. It restricted naturalization to mostly white people - but at the time, "white" included a wide range of non-Anglo-Saxon ethnicities from Irish to Mexicans to Italians to Jews to Russians and more. Also, the initial population of the colonies was only around 80% white. These made it significantly more diverse than its European rivals. From 1925 to 1965, there was a much more restricted immigration policy - especially as a pushback against non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants like Irish, Italians, and Jews. However, that was a limited period and immigration opened up further after that.
Our diversity has never been perfect - but it gave us gospel and jazz and rock 'n roll. It made us the leader in atomic energy thanks to Jewish and other non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants. It has generated much of our uniquely American cultures and traditions.
The question is, what is considered "forced" in terms of immigration? For example, I would say that the whites-only naturalization is just as forced and political as any other immigration laws. I don't think there is a neutral choice. Immigration will always reflect our values and politics. The Immigration Act of 1965 was voted in by a strong majority of both parties who were democratically elected. The changeover from whites-only naturalization to modern immigration reflected the will of the American people as a whole, not just politicians.
(1) There is no ideal ratio. There are countries that are more diverse and countries that are less diverse, and both make it work.
(2) Migrants have never left their identity behind, nor has there ever been perfect agreement between Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, and English-Americans. They can still live in peace and cooperate despite their differences, though.
(3) Diversity isn't required as I said, but America became great - among other things - by being more diverse than its rivals in Europe.
(4) I like to have some people of similar background, but it doesn't need to be a majority. I like the diversity of most of the places I've lived - all within the U.S. but in mixed communities. Currently, my church is mostly white and I'm fine with that. My workplace is mostly Asian, and I'm fine with that as well.
(5) I don't see a problem with that if it happens peacefully from democratic will. My father married my mother, who is white. I have one cousin who married a Chinese woman, and another who adopted Chinese children. It has worked out well for us, and I would be fine if the rest of Korea were to have similar experiences as my family.
Why do you prefer to be around other Asians? I think that proves my point exactly. People still flock to their own, based on cultural background and ethinicities, and there is no such thing as Americans being united by common constitutionalist values.
Back towards the topic, I am curious just how many refugees will be created from this whole situation. So far it looks like the 20-40 year old dudes are shoving the women and kids out of the way to get out as fast as they can. Maybe those are just around the airport, and the nation at large is not in total chaos. The best part, is I for see paying the Talban a nice stipend every year to pretend they have women taking part in their government. I hate to see people suffer and chaos, but this was going to happen no matter what once we decided to nation build. I honestly hope the USA gets a million plus refugees.
Back towards the topic, I am curious just how many refugees will be created from this whole situation. So far it looks like the 20-40 year old dudes are shoving the women and kids out of the way to get out as fast as they can. Maybe those are just around the airport, and the nation at large is not in total chaos. The best part, is I for see paying the Talban a nice stipend every year to pretend they have women taking part in their government. I hate to see people suffer and chaos, but this was going to happen no matter what once we decided to nation build. I honestly hope the USA gets a million plus refugees.
Apparently the answer is, "As many refugees as can print papers," since the current US ruling class saw fit to issue visa documents that could easily be printed and filled out by any number of people with zero vetting. Ongoing reports on who is being evacuated reveals that the ruling class is more concerned with evacuating Afghans than it is with evacuating US citizens.
In a sane country prioritizing Afghans for evacuation before Americans would be a crime, and resettling unvetted people from foreign nations without consent should be considered an attack on Americans.
Not unless they can acclimate and behave themselves.Back towards the topic, I am curious just how many refugees will be created from this whole situation. So far it looks like the 20-40 year old dudes are shoving the women and kids out of the way to get out as fast as they can. Maybe those are just around the airport, and the nation at large is not in total chaos. The best part, is I for see paying the Talban a nice stipend every year to pretend they have women taking part in their government. I hate to see people suffer and chaos, but this was going to happen no matter what once we decided to nation build. I honestly hope the USA gets a million plus refugees.
Apparently the answer is, "As many refugees as can print papers," since the current US ruling class saw fit to issue visa documents that could easily be printed and filled out by any number of people with zero vetting. Ongoing reports on who is being evacuated reveals that the ruling class is more concerned with evacuating Afghans than it is with evacuating US citizens.
In a sane country prioritizing Afghans for evacuation before Americans would be a crime, and resettling unvetted people from foreign nations without consent should be considered an attack on Americans.
Then maybe we can get 1.5 million to 2 million successfully re located to the USA. Sounds good to me, as we need some more people.
Not unless they can acclimate and behave themselves.Back towards the topic, I am curious just how many refugees will be created from this whole situation. So far it looks like the 20-40 year old dudes are shoving the women and kids out of the way to get out as fast as they can. Maybe those are just around the airport, and the nation at large is not in total chaos. The best part, is I for see paying the Talban a nice stipend every year to pretend they have women taking part in their government. I hate to see people suffer and chaos, but this was going to happen no matter what once we decided to nation build. I honestly hope the USA gets a million plus refugees.
Apparently the answer is, "As many refugees as can print papers," since the current US ruling class saw fit to issue visa documents that could easily be printed and filled out by any number of people with zero vetting. Ongoing reports on who is being evacuated reveals that the ruling class is more concerned with evacuating Afghans than it is with evacuating US citizens.
In a sane country prioritizing Afghans for evacuation before Americans would be a crime, and resettling unvetted people from foreign nations without consent should be considered an attack on Americans.
Then maybe we can get 1.5 million to 2 million successfully re located to the USA. Sounds good to me, as we need some more people.
No way to tell. During the U.S. embassy's hurried preparations to leave, they were in possession of Afghani passports being used to draw up visas. Guess what got destroyed in the scramble?Not unless they can acclimate and behave themselves.Back towards the topic, I am curious just how many refugees will be created from this whole situation. So far it looks like the 20-40 year old dudes are shoving the women and kids out of the way to get out as fast as they can. Maybe those are just around the airport, and the nation at large is not in total chaos. The best part, is I for see paying the Talban a nice stipend every year to pretend they have women taking part in their government. I hate to see people suffer and chaos, but this was going to happen no matter what once we decided to nation build. I honestly hope the USA gets a million plus refugees.
Apparently the answer is, "As many refugees as can print papers," since the current US ruling class saw fit to issue visa documents that could easily be printed and filled out by any number of people with zero vetting. Ongoing reports on who is being evacuated reveals that the ruling class is more concerned with evacuating Afghans than it is with evacuating US citizens.
In a sane country prioritizing Afghans for evacuation before Americans would be a crime, and resettling unvetted people from foreign nations without consent should be considered an attack on Americans.
Then maybe we can get 1.5 million to 2 million successfully re located to the USA. Sounds good to me, as we need some more people.
I would say, judging by the general level of ability shown in taking on military standards during training and execution, they are going to fit right in.
No way to tell. During the U.S. embassy's hurried preparations to leave, they were in possession of Afghani passports being used to draw up visas. Guess what got destroyed in the scramble?Not unless they can acclimate and behave themselves.Back towards the topic, I am curious just how many refugees will be created from this whole situation. So far it looks like the 20-40 year old dudes are shoving the women and kids out of the way to get out as fast as they can. Maybe those are just around the airport, and the nation at large is not in total chaos. The best part, is I for see paying the Talban a nice stipend every year to pretend they have women taking part in their government. I hate to see people suffer and chaos, but this was going to happen no matter what once we decided to nation build. I honestly hope the USA gets a million plus refugees.
Apparently the answer is, "As many refugees as can print papers," since the current US ruling class saw fit to issue visa documents that could easily be printed and filled out by any number of people with zero vetting. Ongoing reports on who is being evacuated reveals that the ruling class is more concerned with evacuating Afghans than it is with evacuating US citizens.
In a sane country prioritizing Afghans for evacuation before Americans would be a crime, and resettling unvetted people from foreign nations without consent should be considered an attack on Americans.
Then maybe we can get 1.5 million to 2 million successfully re located to the USA. Sounds good to me, as we need some more people.
I would say, judging by the general level of ability shown in taking on military standards during training and execution, they are going to fit right in.
https://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-destroyed-afghans-passports-103522867.html
Oops.
And how do we vet these people? How do we make sure they're legit and not 'long con' terrorists? Sean Parnell, a combat platoon leader in Afghanistan, detailed how a 'completely vetted' Afghani interpreter wormed his way in and engineered an IED attack against Parnell's platoon, killing one and injuring four others. This same interpreter also engineered the murder of one of his co-interpreters so he'd have full access to info as head interpreter. Nice guy, eh?
Yeah. I have no confidence we won't get a fistful of assholes, and even a fistful is too many.
-2,000 Armored Vehicles Including Humvees and MRAP’sHaven't been able to verify it yet, but it gels with a number of other stories I've seen.
-75,989 Total Vehicles: FMTV, M35, Ford Rangers, Ford F350, Ford Vans, Toyota Pickups, Armored Security Vehicles etc
-45 UH-60 Blachhawk Helicopters
-50 MD530G Scout Attack Choppers
-ScanEagle Military Drones
-30 Military Version Cessnas
-4 C-130’s
-29 Brazilian made A-29 Super Tocano Ground Attack Aircraft
208+ Aircraft Total
-At least 600,000+ Small arms M16, M249 SAWs, M24 Sniper Systems, 50 Calibers, 1,394 M203 Grenade Launchers, M134 Mini Gun, 20mm Gatling Guns and Ammunition
-61,000 M203 Rounds
-20,040 Grenades
-Howitzers
-Mortars +1,000’s of Rounds
-162,000 pieces of Encrypted Military Comunications Gear
-16,000+ Night Vision Goggles
-Newest Technology Night Vision Scopes
-Thermal Scopes and Thermal Mono Googles
-10,000 2.75 inch Air to Ground Rockets
-Recconaissance Equipment (ISR)
-Laser Aiming Units
-Explosives Ordnance C-4, Semtex, Detonators, Shaped Charges, Thermite, Incendiaries, AP/API/APIT
-2,520 Bombs
-Administration Encrypted Cell Phones and Laptops all operational
-Pallets with Millions of Dollars in US Currency
-Millions of Rounds of Ammunition including but not limited to 20,150,600 rounds of 7.62mm, 9,000,000 rounds of 50.caliber
-Large Stockpile of Plate Carriers and Body Armor
-US Military HIIDE, for Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment Biometrics
-Lots of Heavy Equipment Including Bull Dozers, Backhoes, Dump Trucks, Excavators
LOL, ogg, you ass. You know you need to toss the /sarc tag up because some idiot's going to think you're serious, right? :)
In other news: ran across this list of what we just gifted to the Taliban with our retreat.Quote-2,000 Armored Vehicles Including Humvees and MRAP’sHaven't been able to verify it yet, but it gels with a number of other stories I've seen.
-75,989 Total Vehicles: FMTV, M35, Ford Rangers, Ford F350, Ford Vans, Toyota Pickups, Armored Security Vehicles etc
-45 UH-60 Blachhawk Helicopters
-50 MD530G Scout Attack Choppers
-ScanEagle Military Drones
-30 Military Version Cessnas
-4 C-130’s
-29 Brazilian made A-29 Super Tocano Ground Attack Aircraft
208+ Aircraft Total
-At least 600,000+ Small arms M16, M249 SAWs, M24 Sniper Systems, 50 Calibers, 1,394 M203 Grenade Launchers, M134 Mini Gun, 20mm Gatling Guns and Ammunition
-61,000 M203 Rounds
-20,040 Grenades
-Howitzers
-Mortars +1,000’s of Rounds
-162,000 pieces of Encrypted Military Comunications Gear
-16,000+ Night Vision Goggles
-Newest Technology Night Vision Scopes
-Thermal Scopes and Thermal Mono Googles
-10,000 2.75 inch Air to Ground Rockets
-Recconaissance Equipment (ISR)
-Laser Aiming Units
-Explosives Ordnance C-4, Semtex, Detonators, Shaped Charges, Thermite, Incendiaries, AP/API/APIT
-2,520 Bombs
-Administration Encrypted Cell Phones and Laptops all operational
-Pallets with Millions of Dollars in US Currency
-Millions of Rounds of Ammunition including but not limited to 20,150,600 rounds of 7.62mm, 9,000,000 rounds of 50.caliber
-Large Stockpile of Plate Carriers and Body Armor
-US Military HIIDE, for Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment Biometrics
-Lots of Heavy Equipment Including Bull Dozers, Backhoes, Dump Trucks, Excavators
Jesus Christ.
As for the /sarc tag...I have this a great deal of thought, and I think just letting in 2 million afghan refugees is the best way for us to get right to the truth of the matter with immigration, America, and the magic freedom/self reliance soil.See, I've always had a pragmatic view of things.
As for the /sarc tag...I have this a great deal of thought, and I think just letting in 2 million afghan refugees is the best way for us to get right to the truth of the matter with immigration, America, and the magic freedom/self reliance soil.
Yeah, our fine culture is deteriorating like a big pile of dog-shit in the summer sun, and we wonder why different people around the world have zero interest in adopting our fucking cesspool culture?
We have a years and years of work to do right here in the US to even hope to unfuck our debauched, polluted and degenerate culture, before we even think about wanting to teach other people a fucking thing.
LOL, ogg, you ass. You know you need to toss the /sarc tag up because some idiot's going to think you're serious, right? :)
In other news: ran across this list of what we just gifted to the Taliban with our retreat.Quote-2,000 Armored Vehicles Including Humvees and MRAP’sHaven't been able to verify it yet, but it gels with a number of other stories I've seen.
-75,989 Total Vehicles: FMTV, M35, Ford Rangers, Ford F350, Ford Vans, Toyota Pickups, Armored Security Vehicles etc
-45 UH-60 Blachhawk Helicopters
-50 MD530G Scout Attack Choppers
-ScanEagle Military Drones
-30 Military Version Cessnas
-4 C-130’s
-29 Brazilian made A-29 Super Tocano Ground Attack Aircraft
208+ Aircraft Total
-At least 600,000+ Small arms M16, M249 SAWs, M24 Sniper Systems, 50 Calibers, 1,394 M203 Grenade Launchers, M134 Mini Gun, 20mm Gatling Guns and Ammunition
-61,000 M203 Rounds
-20,040 Grenades
-Howitzers
-Mortars +1,000’s of Rounds
-162,000 pieces of Encrypted Military Comunications Gear
-16,000+ Night Vision Goggles
-Newest Technology Night Vision Scopes
-Thermal Scopes and Thermal Mono Googles
-10,000 2.75 inch Air to Ground Rockets
-Recconaissance Equipment (ISR)
-Laser Aiming Units
-Explosives Ordnance C-4, Semtex, Detonators, Shaped Charges, Thermite, Incendiaries, AP/API/APIT
-2,520 Bombs
-Administration Encrypted Cell Phones and Laptops all operational
-Pallets with Millions of Dollars in US Currency
-Millions of Rounds of Ammunition including but not limited to 20,150,600 rounds of 7.62mm, 9,000,000 rounds of 50.caliber
-Large Stockpile of Plate Carriers and Body Armor
-US Military HIIDE, for Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment Biometrics
-Lots of Heavy Equipment Including Bull Dozers, Backhoes, Dump Trucks, Excavators
Jesus Christ.
Yeah, our fine culture is deteriorating like a big pile of dog-shit in the summer sun, and we wonder why different people around the world have zero interest in adopting our fucking cesspool culture?
We have a years and years of work to do right here in the US to even hope to unfuck our debauched, polluted and degenerate culture, before we even think about wanting to teach other people a fucking thing.
SHARK - Less that a year ago, you started a thread "Vietnamese-Americans Rally for President Trump in California" (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/vietnamese-americans-rally-for-president-trump-in-california/). There you went on about the awesomeness of Vietnamese-Americans.
Do you still feel the same way?
SHARK - Less that a year ago, you started a thread "Vietnamese-Americans Rally for President Trump in California" (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/vietnamese-americans-rally-for-president-trump-in-california/). There you went on about the awesomeness of Vietnamese-Americans.
Do you still feel the same way?
Hi, Jhkim. Yes, I do. I think Vietnamese Americans are awesome. Why do you ask?
SHARK - Less that a year ago, you started a thread "Vietnamese-Americans Rally for President Trump in California" (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/vietnamese-americans-rally-for-president-trump-in-california/). There you went on about the awesomeness of Vietnamese-Americans.
Do you still feel the same way?
Hi, Jhkim. Yes, I do. I think Vietnamese Americans are awesome. Why do you ask?
I think the parallels of Vietnam and Afghanistan are pretty clear. We supported a local government but then pulled out and the government was overrun by anti-American forces, resulting in thousand of refugees applying to resettle in the U.S. In the 1978 and 1979, the U.S. accepted hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees, with little ability to vet their backgrounds.
Certainly someone in 1979 might claim that the U.S. as in terrible shape to accept refugees. Our economy was in terrible shape and we were going through massive inflation (13.3%). We had widespread political violence with black power and other dissident groups. The Vietnam War itself had brought massive leftist protests as well as significant domestic terrorism. The Vietnamese were characterized as communist - based on the success of the VC with the Vietnamese people compared to the U.S.
Despite these, do you think it was a good idea for the U.S. to accept Vietnamese refugees? If so, why? And would those same reasons apply to Afghanistan given the similarities?
As for the /sarc tag...I have this a great deal of thought, and I think just letting in 2 million afghan refugees is the best way for us to get right to the truth of the matter with immigration, America, and the magic freedom/self reliance soil.
First of all, I don't think that's possible. We had over a hundred thousand Vietnamese refugees just after the end of the Vietnam War, but that was only possible because they were able to leave the country by boat and shipped in large numbers - hence they were known as "boat people". Most of them could not be screened because they had few records and no way to confirm what documents they had with inside Vietnam after the government fell. Afghanistan being land-locked, this route isn't available.
Given the situation, I think we will have fewer refugees and that they will be better screened than Vietnamese refugees in 1978-79. That could certainly still be too many refugees and not enough screening for some people, but it's a relative statement. There was plenty of criticism and controversy over accepting Vietnamese refugees at the time.
Even if we were to get 2 million, though, I don't think it would show any truth that wasn't already revealed by the millions of Irish immigrants in the 1800s or the millions of various other immigrants in 20th century.
I walked away for a few minutes and came to my senses. I now agree, 2 million afghanis will have no or little visible negative impact on the USA. It is pretty much exactly the same as taking 100k refugees 42 years ago. And definitely the same as taking on millions of IMMIGRANTS (oh, that is a different word...where the person has to come at some risk and effort and expense of their own) who came to a nation that had zero social programs to support them, making it sink or swim.No, I'd say your first post was pretty much on the money, and that jhkim is just an idiot.
I also remembered, what do I care, if it is great, wonderful. If there is a miscalculation and we have friction...well I am leaving anyway. Apologies if anything I said was a little too reactionary. I am certain it will work out for what is best for everyone.
As for the /sarc tag...I have this a great deal of thought, and I think just letting in 2 million afghan refugees is the best way for us to get right to the truth of the matter with immigration, America, and the magic freedom/self reliance soil.
First of all, I don't think that's possible. We had over a hundred thousand Vietnamese refugees just after the end of the Vietnam War, but that was only possible because they were able to leave the country by boat and shipped in large numbers - hence they were known as "boat people". Most of them could not be screened because they had few records and no way to confirm what documents they had with inside Vietnam after the government fell. Afghanistan being land-locked, this route isn't available.
Given the situation, I think we will have fewer refugees and that they will be better screened than Vietnamese refugees in 1978-79. That could certainly still be too many refugees and not enough screening for some people, but it's a relative statement. There was plenty of criticism and controversy over accepting Vietnamese refugees at the time.
Even if we were to get 2 million, though, I don't think it would show any truth that wasn't already revealed by the millions of Irish immigrants in the 1800s or the millions of various other immigrants in 20th century.
If you feel the level of differences in basic culture and lifestyle, as well as social norms and expectations of the 1800's Irish and the USA are the same as the cultural differences of Afghans in 2021, you are simply a moron. I do not mean that as an attack, I think you would have to be a moron to think that. I do not think you are a moron, so you are either just firing off an answer, or have given it zero critical thought.
John Kim seems to approach a lot of social issues as a particle physicist, i.e. control a few variables to isolate one element, and the results can be used to predict future behavior with a high degree of certainty.
John Kim seems to approach a lot of social issues as a particle physicist, i.e. control a few variables to isolate one element, and the results can be used to predict future behavior with a high degree of certainty.
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I would say the opposite. I would say to take social predictions with a huge grain of salt. The social sciences have always had major problems with reproducibility.
Specifically in this case, oggsmash is arguing that if only we had 2 million Afghan refugees that the fundamental truth would be revealed. I am claiming that the sample wouldn't add any clarity. It would just be one more sample out of dozens, and wouldn't improve any future predictions.
More broadly, I feel that oggsmash has made more specific social predictions than I have.
The coming Aug 31 deadline might be a problem. :-(
(https://media.patriots.win/post/VVwiFRC8.jpeg)
President Biden's approval rating has dipped sharply over Afghanistan (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/24/afghanistan-woes-sink-bidens-approval-41-usa-today-suffolk-poll/8244854002/).I posted a couple days ago about his drop of 7% over the first weekend of the Afghan debacle. (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/biden-s-presidency-all-hail-the-taliban!/msg1184154/#msg1184154) That pulled him from 53% to 46%, but 41% is another 5 points down. That's particularly remarkable for Biden, because his approval rating prior to this was absurdly steady. And that's not just compared to to someone divisive like Trump; compared to Biden, even Obama's ratings were all over the place. Biden's rating just didn't budge, regardless of what was going on. Until now.
President Biden's approval rating has dipped sharply over Afghanistan (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/24/afghanistan-woes-sink-bidens-approval-41-usa-today-suffolk-poll/8244854002/).I posted a couple days ago about his drop of 7% over the first weekend of the Afghan debacle. That pulled him from 54% to 47%, but 41% is another 6 points down. That's particularly remarkable for Biden, because his approval rating prior to this was absurdly steady. And that's not just compared to to someone divisive like Trump; compared to Biden, even Obama's ratings were all over the place. Biden's rating just didn't budge, regardless of what was going on. Until now.
President Biden's approval rating has dipped sharply over Afghanistan (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/24/afghanistan-woes-sink-bidens-approval-41-usa-today-suffolk-poll/8244854002/).
Well that's what happens when he is setup as the scapegoat for the intelligence agencies and the military-industrial complex.
The people who voted against Trump, while not really voting for Biden, are reaping the consequences of their choice.
Nothing productive accomplished, in spite of controlling the entirety of the government.
The people who voted against Trump, while not really voting for Biden, are reaping the consequences of their choice.
Nothing productive accomplished, in spite of controlling the entirety of the government.
You say that like it's a bad thing when the Government produces and accomplishes nothing.
BTW, can anybody tell me why the US is in Afghanistan? What is the official explanation?Terrorism, then nation building.
BTW, can anybody tell me why the US is in Afghanistan? What is the official explanation?Terrorism, then nation building.
Are you asking a legitimate question where you don't know the answer, or are you trying to set something up? Because it feels a lot more like the latter.BTW, can anybody tell me why the US is in Afghanistan? What is the official explanation?Terrorism, then nation building.
What do you mean by this? Is there a reasonable threat coming from Afghanistan which they're trying to quell?
BTW, can anybody tell me why the US is in Afghanistan? What is the official explanation?Terrorism, then nation building.
What do you mean by this? Is there a reasonable threat coming from Afghanistan which they're trying to quell?
We went into Afghanistan in 2001 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The Taliban were supporting and harboring Al Qaeda who were responsible for the attacks.
At the time, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan - as did most of the U.N. and most of the American populace. I think one of the few justifications of war is in response to deter aggression. If someone makes an attack like 9/11, then responsible nations should rise up and punish that aggressor. Ideally, this punishment should be swift and clear, which shows other nations that there is no gain in making such moves.
Sadly, the later goals of nation-building have muddled that deterrent - along with the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Deterrent works best if other nations understand that (1) if we attack another country, we will be punished; (2) if we don't attack another country, we will not be punished.
What is "nation-building" in this context? Basically indoctrinating/brainwashing the populace so that they won't become a threat?
What is "nation-building" in this context? Basically indoctrinating/brainwashing the populace so that they won't become a threat?
After toppling the Taliban, the idea was to build up Afghanistan into a modern state that wouldn't be a haven for terrorists.
The problem was that Afghanistan has never been a unified country. Historically it has always been a collection of miserable warlord fiefdoms, set up in isolated pockets of terrain separated by mountains. Whatever central government existed was weak, and its power didn't really extend out into the far corners of the territory.
Our plan was to shore up the central government and build roads to join the isolated pockets into one larger country. But the central government proved to be corrupt and inefficient, and building roads through mountains is no easy task.
We did a lot better job of nation building in Iraq, but Iraq was already much farther along the path to being a modern state when we started.
The poster child for nation-building is, of course, Japan, where we were able to both force a complete ideological break with the Imperial Japan of old, and set them back on their feet economically, so that they became a prosperous modern country, and a strong ally.
BTW, can anybody tell me why the US is in Afghanistan? What is the official explanation?Terrorism, then nation building.
What do you mean by this? Is there a reasonable threat coming from Afghanistan which they're trying to quell?
We went into Afghanistan in 2001 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The Taliban were supporting and harboring Al Qaeda who were responsible for the attacks.
At the time, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan - as did most of the U.N. and most of the American populace. I think one of the few justifications of war is in response to deter aggression. If someone makes an attack like 9/11, then responsible nations should rise up and punish that aggressor. Ideally, this punishment should be swift and clear, which shows other nations that there is no gain in making such moves.
Sadly, the later goals of nation-building have muddled that deterrent - along with the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Deterrent works best if other nations understand that (1) if we attack another country, we will be punished; (2) if we don't attack another country, we will not be punished.
We did a lot better job of nation building in Iraq, but Iraq was already much farther along the path to being a modern state when we started.
The poster child for nation-building is, of course, Japan, where we were able to both force a complete ideological break with the Imperial Japan of old, and set them back on their feet economically, so that they became a prosperous modern country, and a strong ally.
It is not America's right nor obligation to "build nations" or "ensure the world is safe for democracy", nor can they do it; it's logistically impossible for any country. "Nation building" is nothing more than a euphemism installing a puppet regime after overthrowing the previous one. This is what they did with Japan, Germany (which was partitioned between globalist west and soviet east and erased as a military competitor just as they did with Japan) and many such other countries which did not align with globalism, terrorist or not. They make up excuses like weapons of mass destruction, babies in incubators, the rape of Belgium, and other made up imminent threats to justify an invasion.
Besides, it will fail because their islamic culture is inherently incomptible with western values. There can be no distinction between mosque and state (lol), no respect for "diversity", no such thing as free speech, etc. They never went through a protestant reformation the peace of Westphalia or French revolution.
Feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong.
BTW, can anybody tell me why the US is in Afghanistan? What is the official explanation?Terrorism, then nation building.
What do you mean by this? Is there a reasonable threat coming from Afghanistan which they're trying to quell?
We went into Afghanistan in 2001 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The Taliban were supporting and harboring Al Qaeda who were responsible for the attacks.
At the time, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan - as did most of the U.N. and most of the American populace. I think one of the few justifications of war is in response to deter aggression. If someone makes an attack like 9/11, then responsible nations should rise up and punish that aggressor. Ideally, this punishment should be swift and clear, which shows other nations that there is no gain in making such moves.
Sadly, the later goals of nation-building have muddled that deterrent - along with the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Deterrent works best if other nations understand that (1) if we attack another country, we will be punished; (2) if we don't attack another country, we will not be punished.
The invasion of Afghanistan had 88% public approval at the time. Which is about as close to unanimous as our nation gets.
Japan was already a stable, unified, and modern country in 1945 - so I think calling it "nation building" is a misnomer. To the extent that we changed the Japanese ideology, it was from a far more massive effort than in Afghanistan - with hundreds of thousands of troops and a military occupation that continues to this day. I also think it is crucial that the Japanese people recognized that the Allies had responded to their military aggression. They learned a lesson for themselves from external consequences.
Further, we left Emperor Hirohito in place along with the most of the Japanese government, and worked with them to implement change. In the case of Afghanistan, we took on the harder task of completely rebuilding a new government from scratch.
I think it was possible for us to have had a form of success in Afghanistan, but I think it was mishandled.
I also think that most of America's wars have been excuses rather than defensive. However, in the case of some wars, the excuses are much closer to valid justification. WWII, the Korean War, the First Gulf War, and the invasion of Afghanistan were all direct responses to aggression on the part of other countries. That doesn't mean we weren't biased or fault, but far less so than our opposition.
While the latter is true, Korea and Japan also never went through a Protestant Reformation, Pease of Westphalia, or French Revolution. Especially, I don't think that Imperial Japan in 1944 was any closer to Western values than 2001 Afghanistan.
The first gulf war was IMO not justified. Kuwait got their hand slapped for STEALING from Iraq. The USA stepped in on behalf of its paymasters. Not justified IMO. I would also say there NEVER should have been (and I said this to everyone who would listen in 2001 and on) an invasion of Afghanistan, a massively punitive firestorm, sure, but invasion is ALWAYS occupation, and ALWAYS a fucking mess.
Comparing Japan and Korea with Islam is perhaps not bad faith, but it is not in any way an apples to oranges comparison. Read the Koran, and it will become a good bit clearer about how the west views a civilization should run, and how Islam views it.
The first gulf war was IMO not justified. Kuwait got their hand slapped for STEALING from Iraq. The USA stepped in on behalf of its paymasters. Not justified IMO. I would also say there NEVER should have been (and I said this to everyone who would listen in 2001 and on) an invasion of Afghanistan, a massively punitive firestorm, sure, but invasion is ALWAYS occupation, and ALWAYS a fucking mess.
Being invaded and occupied is not a slap on the hand. It is a huge escalation. And I think it's a good thing if the international community doesn't tolerate military invasion as a proper response to economic disputes.
Further, if a country does start one-sided military action like a pre-emptive invasion, then I think it's a good thing for other countries to strike back and deter that behavior. I'm not saying Kuwait didn't steal (-- I have no opinion on that. The point is that regardless, the answer shouldn't be invasion and conquest of their whole country -- and that such escalation shouldn't be tolerated.Comparing Japan and Korea with Islam is perhaps not bad faith, but it is not in any way an apples to oranges comparison. Read the Koran, and it will become a good bit clearer about how the west views a civilization should run, and how Islam views it.
I certainly agree that the Koran has a view very different from how the West views civilization. But I am claiming that Shinto and Imperial Japan also have a very different view of civilization. Many Westerners are introduced to modern romanticized portrayals of honorable samurai and clever ninja, but the actual historical reality of the Japanese is much less compatible with modern Western values.
We did a lot better job of nation building in Iraq, but Iraq was already much farther along the path to being a modern state when we started.
The poster child for nation-building is, of course, Japan, where we were able to both force a complete ideological break with the Imperial Japan of old, and set them back on their feet economically, so that they became a prosperous modern country, and a strong ally.
Japan was already a stable, unified, and modern country in 1945 - so I think calling it "nation building" is a misnomer.
I certainly agree that the Koran has a view very different from how the West views civilization. But I am claiming that Shinto and Imperial Japan also have a very different view of civilization. Many Westerners are introduced to modern romanticized portrayals of honorable samurai and clever ninja, but the actual historical reality of the Japanese is much less compatible with modern Western values.
Regarding Imperial Japan, the samurai was Loooong phased out and is one of the things that allowed industrial Japan to explode out from prior feudalism. I have a good bit of historical knowledge about Japan (Korea not so much) and am fully aware of how things ran there, but it is still not as 'off' from the basics of western civilization as Islam. Christians were able to enter and convert Japanese people to Christianity as early as the 1500's... you think that flew in the caliphate? You think that would fly now in Islamic fundamentalist countries? Again, read the Koran, or more history because I think you are drawing conclusion lacking a track record of behavior.
Under Hideyoshi and the succeeding Tokugawa shogunate, Catholic Christianity was repressed and adherents were persecuted. During Toyotomi rule especially, foreign missionaries were killed in Japan, some by (Japanese-style) crucifixion; most famously, the twenty-six martyrs of Japan were tortured and crucified on crosses outside Nagasaki to discourage Christianity in 1597. (Hideyoshi nonetheless showed favor to daimyō who had converted, such as Konishi Yukinaga.) Following a brief respite as Tokugawa Ieyasu rose to power and pursued trade with the Portuguese powers, there were further persecutions and martyrdoms in 1613, 1630, 1632 and 1634.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Japan#Persecution_under_the_Shogunate
By this point, after the Shimabara Rebellion, the remaining Christians had been forced to publicly renounce their faith. Many continued practicing Christianity in secret, in modern times becoming known as the "hidden Christians" (隠れキリシタン, kakure kirishitan). These secret believers would often conceal Christian iconography in closed shrines, lanterns or inconspicuous parts of buildings. For example, Himeji Castle has a Christian cross on one of its 17th-century roof tiles, in place of a mon, indicating that one of its occupants was a secret Christian.
I certainly agree that the Koran has a view very different from how the West views civilization. But I am claiming that Shinto and Imperial Japan also have a very different view of civilization. Many Westerners are introduced to modern romanticized portrayals of honorable samurai and clever ninja, but the actual historical reality of the Japanese is much less compatible with modern Western values.
Regarding Imperial Japan, the samurai was Loooong phased out and is one of the things that allowed industrial Japan to explode out from prior feudalism. I have a good bit of historical knowledge about Japan (Korea not so much) and am fully aware of how things ran there, but it is still not as 'off' from the basics of western civilization as Islam. Christians were able to enter and convert Japanese people to Christianity as early as the 1500's... you think that flew in the caliphate? You think that would fly now in Islamic fundamentalist countries? Again, read the Koran, or more history because I think you are drawing conclusion lacking a track record of behavior.
You're implying religious freedom as a standard in Japan. I quote from Wikipedia here because it was easy to search, and I've read the same from multiple other sources:QuoteUnder Hideyoshi and the succeeding Tokugawa shogunate, Catholic Christianity was repressed and adherents were persecuted. During Toyotomi rule especially, foreign missionaries were killed in Japan, some by (Japanese-style) crucifixion; most famously, the twenty-six martyrs of Japan were tortured and crucified on crosses outside Nagasaki to discourage Christianity in 1597. (Hideyoshi nonetheless showed favor to daimyō who had converted, such as Konishi Yukinaga.) Following a brief respite as Tokugawa Ieyasu rose to power and pursued trade with the Portuguese powers, there were further persecutions and martyrdoms in 1613, 1630, 1632 and 1634.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Japan#Persecution_under_the_Shogunate
By this point, after the Shimabara Rebellion, the remaining Christians had been forced to publicly renounce their faith. Many continued practicing Christianity in secret, in modern times becoming known as the "hidden Christians" (隠れキリシタン, kakure kirishitan). These secret believers would often conceal Christian iconography in closed shrines, lanterns or inconspicuous parts of buildings. For example, Himeji Castle has a Christian cross on one of its 17th-century roof tiles, in place of a mon, indicating that one of its occupants was a secret Christian.
Imperial Japan under Meiji from 1871 to 1945 did permit Christians as part of its effort at modernization, but I would say that was more a tactical move to facilitate modernization rather than a philosophical embrace of religious freedom -- much like how several Islamic empires like the Ottomans permitted Christian minorities for long periods but taxed them at a higher rate than Muslims.
To be fair to suicide bombers, there's really no point to killing yourself if you're not taking anyone else with you. If you let all of your targets leave, then are you really even a suicide bomber anymore? It's not easy to abandon an identity that you've built the rest of your very short life around.
To be fair to suicide bombers, there's really no point to killing yourself if you're not taking anyone else with you. If you let all of your targets leave, then are you really even a suicide bomber anymore? It's not easy to abandon an identity that you've built the rest of your very short life around.
This could come off better to me as a joke if Americans were not getting killed by bombs as you make it. I normally do not mind a taste of gallows humor, but this is pretty low class.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/afghanistan-kabul-airport-explosion-pentagon-confirms/
Not content to watch Americans and allied Afghanis flee in a panic, suicide bombers felt it was necessary to blow them up.
To be fair to suicide bombers, there's really no point to killing yourself if you're not taking anyone else with you. If you let all of your targets leave, then are you really even a suicide bomber anymore? It's not easy to abandon an identity that you've built the rest of your very short life around.
This could come off better to me as a joke if Americans were not getting killed by bombs as you make it. I normally do not mind a taste of gallows humor, but this is pretty low class.
I'm sorry that I have offended you, and I agree that a joke about the death of scores of people including more than a dozen US military is not appropriate. I wouldn't qualify my comment as a joke - or even a feeble attempt at such, rather a flippant response to the following:https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/afghanistan-kabul-airport-explosion-pentagon-confirms/
Not content to watch Americans and allied Afghanis flee in a panic, suicide bombers felt it was necessary to blow them up.
Having been aware of the entire war in Afghanistan I felt that Ratman's comment was oblivious. Of course ISIS isn't content to watch American and allied Afghanis flee in a panic. To think otherwise would be... incredibly naive. There were warnings several days ago that this was going to happen. And this happened. The sad fact is, you are never going to be able to stop someone that is willing to sacrifice their life from killing others - all you can do is make it much harder. Obviously not having access to explosives would have made this much harder. Like keeping civilians and students from having access to semi-automatic weapons would have reduced the casualty counts in every mass-shooting in this country.
So feel free to hold that comment against me - it certainly wasn't well thought out - but it is just weariness about a lot of preventable deaths - not preventable NOW but preventable if we had chosen other actions at other times. This was a slow-motion train wreck, and of course it was always going to end this way. Why feign surprise?
To be fair to suicide bombers, there's really no point to killing yourself if you're not taking anyone else with you. If you let all of your targets leave, then are you really even a suicide bomber anymore? It's not easy to abandon an identity that you've built the rest of your very short life around.
This could come off better to me as a joke if Americans were not getting killed by bombs as you make it. I normally do not mind a taste of gallows humor, but this is pretty low class.
To be fair to suicide bombers, there's really no point to killing yourself if you're not taking anyone else with you. If you let all of your targets leave, then are you really even a suicide bomber anymore? It's not easy to abandon an identity that you've built the rest of your very short life around.
This could come off better to me as a joke if Americans were not getting killed by bombs as you make it. I normally do not mind a taste of gallows humor, but this is pretty low class.
I'm sorry that I have offended you, and I agree that a joke about the death of scores of people including more than a dozen US military is not appropriate. I wouldn't qualify my comment as a joke - or even a feeble attempt at such, rather a flippant response to the following:https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/afghanistan-kabul-airport-explosion-pentagon-confirms/
Not content to watch Americans and allied Afghanis flee in a panic, suicide bombers felt it was necessary to blow them up.
Having been aware of the entire war in Afghanistan I felt that Ratman's comment was oblivious. Of course ISIS isn't content to watch American and allied Afghanis flee in a panic. To think otherwise would be... incredibly naive. There were warnings several days ago that this was going to happen. And this happened. The sad fact is, you are never going to be able to stop someone that is willing to sacrifice their life from killing others - all you can do is make it much harder. Obviously not having access to explosives would have made this much harder. Like keeping civilians and students from having access to semi-automatic weapons would have reduced the casualty counts in every mass-shooting in this country.
So feel free to hold that comment against me - it certainly wasn't well thought out - but it is just weariness about a lot of preventable deaths - not preventable NOW but preventable if we had chosen other actions at other times. This was a slow-motion train wreck, and of course it was always going to end this way. Why feign surprise?
As to your first question? The withdrawal? I sure hope it could have because if not?
The question is, could this have gone another way? Biden's advisors are frothing at the mouth about how he ignored their withdrawl plans and advice, and did... whatever the fuck this thing he's doing now.
Jesus Christ. Reports coming in that Biden's drone strike hit the house of an Afghani interpreter and his family, killed them all including six kids. Some 'mastermind'.
Normally I'd be suspicious but holy fuck, the Pederast In Chief is out to lunch and it's clear the military leaders would rather chase 'white rage' and make sure their diversity quotas are filled.
You really have to hope there is some plan, even if it's evil and awful. Because otherwise, holy shit, we let these people set policy?Jesus Christ. Reports coming in that Biden's drone strike hit the house of an Afghani interpreter and his family, killed them all including six kids. Some 'mastermind'.
Normally I'd be suspicious but holy fuck, the Pederast In Chief is out to lunch and it's clear the military leaders would rather chase 'white rage' and make sure their diversity quotas are filled.
Maybe it's incompetence instead of malice, but a part of me can't shake the suspicion that this is all part of some crazy plan, because the alternative is that our current administration is that incompetent.
Maybe they're setting the stage for Biden's withdrawal due to his blatant senility and his replacement by Chameleon Lady and her diversity regimeI haven't gotten the impression that the media is particularly fond of Harris.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/AD49/production/_114016344_x_kamala_meme_misleading.jpg)
Of course, she's already backed by the media! As you can guess, all criticism is simply "debunked racist far right conspiracy theories by alt-right white supremacist, anti-vaxxer, gun-toting extremists who are also antisemitic, sexist, islamophobic and xenophobic and a threat to diversity and democracy"
Fortunately we have fact checkers hired by Soros and the BBC who covered up for pedophile Jimmy Saville to tell us who to trust
Maybe they're setting the stage for Biden's withdrawal due to his blatant senility and his replacement by Chameleon Lady and her diversity regime
Of course, she's already backed by the media! As you can guess, all criticism is simply "debunked racist far right conspiracy theories by alt-right white supremacist, anti-vaxxer, gun-toting extremists who are also antisemitic, sexist, islamophobic and xenophobic and a threat to diversity and democracy"
Fortunately we have fact checkers hired by Soros and the BBC who covered up for pedophile Jimmy Saville to tell us who to trust
We don't use the 'one drop' rule for anything, bigot.Maybe they're setting the stage for Biden's withdrawal due to his blatant senility and his replacement by Chameleon Lady and her diversity regime
Of course, she's already backed by the media! As you can guess, all criticism is simply "debunked racist far right conspiracy theories by alt-right white supremacist, anti-vaxxer, gun-toting extremists who are also antisemitic, sexist, islamophobic and xenophobic and a threat to diversity and democracy"
Fortunately we have fact checkers hired by Soros and the BBC who covered up for pedophile Jimmy Saville to tell us who to trust
I mean, she is both of India heritage and African heritage. And as the U.S. uses the "one drop" rule for African American I am not sure what the issue is? It's not mutually exclusive to be both.
We don't use the 'one drop' rule for anything, bigot.Maybe they're setting the stage for Biden's withdrawal due to his blatant senility and his replacement by Chameleon Lady and her diversity regime
Of course, she's already backed by the media! As you can guess, all criticism is simply "debunked racist far right conspiracy theories by alt-right white supremacist, anti-vaxxer, gun-toting extremists who are also antisemitic, sexist, islamophobic and xenophobic and a threat to diversity and democracy"
Fortunately we have fact checkers hired by Soros and the BBC who covered up for pedophile Jimmy Saville to tell us who to trust
I mean, she is both of India heritage and African heritage. And as the U.S. uses the "one drop" rule for African American I am not sure what the issue is? It's not mutually exclusive to be both.
I don't rule out that there's some liberal monkey who thinks that way, but there are no enforceable U.S. laws that utilize it.
Maybe they're setting the stage for Biden's withdrawal due to his blatant senility and his replacement by Chameleon Lady and her diversity regime
Of course, she's already backed by the media! As you can guess, all criticism is simply "debunked racist far right conspiracy theories by alt-right white supremacist, anti-vaxxer, gun-toting extremists who are also antisemitic, sexist, islamophobic and xenophobic and a threat to diversity and democracy"
Fortunately we have fact checkers hired by Soros and the BBC who covered up for pedophile Jimmy Saville to tell us who to trust
(https://i.redd.it/6iflyxlwgjk71.jpg)
This has to be one of the most brain-dead "hot takes" I have ever seen. Both my wife and I are immigrants to the US and we both feel that the left has been driving us to the right, partly by incessant left-wing hyping from the mass media that started to resemble North Korean propaganda.
Also notice the use of the word "ecosystem" as an attempt at sounding eloquent.
I can tell you why they are worse for Biden than Trump, Trump is actively fighting them and has to operate with zero support from them. Biden, completely, and utterly relies on their support to look in any way credible. Remove their cover for him, and the reality is pretty fucking grim.An interesting point of view. Not entirely sure I buy that angle (as the media organs will about-face if Biden ever manages to stop his free fall, as improbable as that may seem), but I can agree that Sleepy Joe is very much propped up by them to a degree.
(https://i.redd.it/6iflyxlwgjk71.jpg)Honestly, when someone lives in a headspace this divorced from reality, there's no talking them down. We are at the point where someone would argue that the sky is "ackshully" green, just because Trump said it was blue, and truly believe it.
This has to be one of the most brain-dead "hot takes" I have ever seen. Both my wife and I are immigrants to the US and we both feel that the left has been driving us to the right, partly by incessant left-wing hyping from the mass media that started to resemble North Korean propaganda.
Also notice the use of the word "ecosystem" as an attempt at sounding eloquent.
I can tell you why they are worse for Biden than Trump, Trump is actively fighting them and has to operate with zero support from them. Biden, completely, and utterly relies on their support to look in any way credible. Remove their cover for him, and the reality is pretty fucking grim.An interesting point of view. Not entirely sure I buy that angle (as the media organs will about-face if Biden ever manages to stop his free fall, as improbable as that may seem), but I can agree that Sleepy Joe is very much propped up by them to a degree.
Greetings!
Yeah, Jonathan Chait is a total fucktard moron. The Democrats don't have a media ecosystem that supports them?
Just think abut how the media treated President Trump compared to how the media treats Biden.
The NYT even admitted to purposely running anti-trump, negative Trump articles every fucking day.
CNN, MSNBC, ALL of the "Late Night" shows--all of them, running negative articles, negative editorials, negative news reporting, negative "Comedy Skits" on and on, every fucking day. The Atlantic, the NYT, the LA Times, Salon, GQ, Vogue, Rolling Stone. Every goddamn one of them always being negative towards President Trump.
Fuck them. They can all burn in Napalm. Think about not just what the media actually reports and says about Biden--but also by what they don't do or say about Biden. No endless, daily hit pieces on Biden always searching for the drop of toothpaste to critique him on. Likewise, imagine the avalanche of criticism that could be spotlighted on fucking Kamala, each and every day. Three months of that kind of treatment against her that President Trump got would have her sobbing and fleeing to retire in a mental asylum somewhere fast.
Instead, the media routinely sucks on Kamala's ass.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!I admit, the silver lining is watching these morons burn the last shreds of their credibility trying to prop up a senile old hair-sniffing plagiarist who was never more than a C-grade politician at best, and a straight up whore whose political fortunes were based solely on who she could suck off between her cackling fits and consigning minorities to extended prison terms.
Yeah, Jonathan Chait is a total fucktard moron. The Democrats don't have a media ecosystem that supports them?
Just think abut how the media treated President Trump compared to how the media treats Biden.
The NYT even admitted to purposely running anti-trump, negative Trump articles every fucking day.
CNN, MSNBC, ALL of the "Late Night" shows--all of them, running negative articles, negative editorials, negative news reporting, negative "Comedy Skits" on and on, every fucking day. The Atlantic, the NYT, the LA Times, Salon, GQ, Vogue, Rolling Stone. Every goddamn one of them always being negative towards President Trump.
Fuck them. They can all burn in Napalm. Think about not just what the media actually reports and says about Biden--but also by what they don't do or say about Biden. No endless, daily hit pieces on Biden always searching for the drop of toothpaste to critique him on. Likewise, imagine the avalanche of criticism that could be spotlighted on fucking Kamala, each and every day. Three months of that kind of treatment against her that President Trump got would have her sobbing and fleeing to retire in a mental asylum somewhere fast.
Instead, the media routinely sucks on Kamala's ass.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
We don't use the 'one drop' rule for anything, bigot.Maybe they're setting the stage for Biden's withdrawal due to his blatant senility and his replacement by Chameleon Lady and her diversity regime
Of course, she's already backed by the media! As you can guess, all criticism is simply "debunked racist far right conspiracy theories by alt-right white supremacist, anti-vaxxer, gun-toting extremists who are also antisemitic, sexist, islamophobic and xenophobic and a threat to diversity and democracy"
Fortunately we have fact checkers hired by Soros and the BBC who covered up for pedophile Jimmy Saville to tell us who to trust
I mean, she is both of India heritage and African heritage. And as the U.S. uses the "one drop" rule for African American I am not sure what the issue is? It's not mutually exclusive to be both.
To be fair, you have to go both ways. Her Irish ancestry means Kamala Harris is also a cis-gendered middle aged white woman, aka a Karen.
We literally do, moron. I didn't invent that standard and it's no longer codified but it remains the cultural standard. The African American community adopted that standard. I suspect YOU adopted it too, unless you're claiming President Obama was not African American? It's not a literal "one drop" by the way that's just the old common parlance. It's more complicated than that, but unquestionably Kamala Harris is in fact considered both African American and a person of India decent.
To be fair, you have to go both ways. Her Irish ancestry means Kamala Harris is also a cis-gendered middle aged white woman, aka a Karen.
We literally do, moron. I didn't invent that standard and it's no longer codified but it remains the cultural standard. The African American community adopted that standard. I suspect YOU adopted it too, unless you're claiming President Obama was not African American? It's not a literal "one drop" by the way that's just the old common parlance. It's more complicated than that, but unquestionably Kamala Harris is in fact considered both African American and a person of India decent.
Greetings!
Yeah, Jonathan Chait is a total fucktard moron. The Democrats don't have a media ecosystem that supports them?
Just think abut how the media treated President Trump compared to how the media treats Biden.
The NYT even admitted to purposely running anti-trump, negative Trump articles every fucking day.
CNN, MSNBC, ALL of the "Late Night" shows--all of them, running negative articles, negative editorials, negative news reporting, negative "Comedy Skits" on and on, every fucking day. The Atlantic, the NYT, the LA Times, Salon, GQ, Vogue, Rolling Stone. Every goddamn one of them always being negative towards President Trump.
Fuck them. They can all burn in Napalm. Think about not just what the media actually reports and says about Biden--but also by what they don't do or say about Biden. No endless, daily hit pieces on Biden always searching for the drop of toothpaste to critique him on. Likewise, imagine the avalanche of criticism that could be spotlighted on fucking Kamala, each and every day. Three months of that kind of treatment against her that President Trump got would have her sobbing and fleeing to retire in a mental asylum somewhere fast.
Instead, the media routinely sucks on Kamala's ass.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I can't help it if other people are stupid. I see you left out the second part of my quote.We don't use the 'one drop' rule for anything, bigot.Maybe they're setting the stage for Biden's withdrawal due to his blatant senility and his replacement by Chameleon Lady and her diversity regime
Of course, she's already backed by the media! As you can guess, all criticism is simply "debunked racist far right conspiracy theories by alt-right white supremacist, anti-vaxxer, gun-toting extremists who are also antisemitic, sexist, islamophobic and xenophobic and a threat to diversity and democracy"
Fortunately we have fact checkers hired by Soros and the BBC who covered up for pedophile Jimmy Saville to tell us who to trust
I mean, she is both of India heritage and African heritage. And as the U.S. uses the "one drop" rule for African American I am not sure what the issue is? It's not mutually exclusive to be both.
We literally do, moron. I didn't invent that standard and it's no longer codified but it remains the cultural standard. The African American community adopted that standard. I suspect YOU adopted it too, unless you're claiming President Obama was not African American? It's not a literal "one drop" by the way that's just the old common parlance. It's more complicated than that, but unquestionably Kamala Harris is in fact considered both African American and a person of India decent.
Greetings!
Yeah, Jonathan Chait is a total fucktard moron. The Democrats don't have a media ecosystem that supports them?
Just think abut how the media treated President Trump compared to how the media treats Biden.
The NYT even admitted to purposely running anti-trump, negative Trump articles every fucking day.
CNN, MSNBC, ALL of the "Late Night" shows--all of them, running negative articles, negative editorials, negative news reporting, negative "Comedy Skits" on and on, every fucking day. The Atlantic, the NYT, the LA Times, Salon, GQ, Vogue, Rolling Stone. Every goddamn one of them always being negative towards President Trump.
Fuck them. They can all burn in Napalm. Think about not just what the media actually reports and says about Biden--but also by what they don't do or say about Biden. No endless, daily hit pieces on Biden always searching for the drop of toothpaste to critique him on. Likewise, imagine the avalanche of criticism that could be spotlighted on fucking Kamala, each and every day. Three months of that kind of treatment against her that President Trump got would have her sobbing and fleeing to retire in a mental asylum somewhere fast.
Instead, the media routinely sucks on Kamala's ass.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
CNN also admitted it, albeit on Project Veritas "candid camera" :)
I can't help it if other people are stupid. I see you left out the second part of my quote.We don't use the 'one drop' rule for anything, bigot.Maybe they're setting the stage for Biden's withdrawal due to his blatant senility and his replacement by Chameleon Lady and her diversity regime
Of course, she's already backed by the media! As you can guess, all criticism is simply "debunked racist far right conspiracy theories by alt-right white supremacist, anti-vaxxer, gun-toting extremists who are also antisemitic, sexist, islamophobic and xenophobic and a threat to diversity and democracy"
Fortunately we have fact checkers hired by Soros and the BBC who covered up for pedophile Jimmy Saville to tell us who to trust
I mean, she is both of India heritage and African heritage. And as the U.S. uses the "one drop" rule for African American I am not sure what the issue is? It's not mutually exclusive to be both.
We literally do, moron. I didn't invent that standard and it's no longer codified but it remains the cultural standard. The African American community adopted that standard. I suspect YOU adopted it too, unless you're claiming President Obama was not African American? It's not a literal "one drop" by the way that's just the old common parlance. It's more complicated than that, but unquestionably Kamala Harris is in fact considered both African American and a person of India decent.
But then, you are a neocon and therefore scum.
As for Irish she's what, 1/8th Irish and nobody identifies her that way nor does she identify herself that way?One drop rule, remember. Her blood is tainted with whiskey and potatoes!
Greetings!
Yep! You are exactly right, Trond! All of these corrupt media companies have amply demonstrated how they are total Liberal Marxist propaganda machines, utterly untrustworthy, and utterly bankrupt of any morals or any kind of professional or journalistic legitimacy.
That's why nowadays I chalk them up to lying bastards entirely, and discard anything they say, or anything some Libtard quotes from them. It is mind boggling how disgusting they are. They lie, they fabricate, they deceive every day, in virtually every program, every video, every story they produce. It's so clown world that some pseudo-educated smug Liberals try to condescending insist such "News sources" are in any way legitimate, reputable, or professional. Anyone that is truly educated or even observant knows they have become disgusting, worthless rags. Pathetic programing that cannot be trusted for much of anything.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
A number of news sources, mostly conservative of course, are reporting that a group of US veterans, including Green Berets and SEALs, flew to Kabul and conducted a number of sorties to rescue the Afghanis they'd worked with. Including family members, they rescued several hundred over the course of a week (reports vary, but all are 500 or more). They called their mission the Pineapple Express, because they were telling their contacts to say the word pineapple, or a show a pineapple on their phones, to be allowed in the gates. Which sounds like a better plan than giving the Taliban a list of all their names.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/27/us-vets-volunteer-to-secretly-rescue-allies-in-afghanistan/
A number of news sources, mostly conservative of course, are reporting that a group of US veterans, including Green Berets and SEALs, flew to Kabul and conducted a number of sorties to rescue the Afghanis they'd worked with. Including family members, they rescued several hundred over the course of a week (reports vary, but all are 500 or more). They called their mission the Pineapple Express, because they were telling their contacts to say the word pineapple, or a show a pineapple on their phones, to be allowed in the gates. Which sounds like a better plan than giving the Taliban a list of all their names.I'll watch the film adaptation when it comes out.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/27/us-vets-volunteer-to-secretly-rescue-allies-in-afghanistan/
A number of news sources, mostly conservative of course, are reporting that a group of US veterans, including Green Berets and SEALs, flew to Kabul and conducted a number of sorties to rescue the Afghanis they'd worked with. Including family members, they rescued several hundred over the course of a week (reports vary, but all are 500 or more). They called their mission the Pineapple Express, because they were telling their contacts to say the word pineapple, or a show a pineapple on their phones, to be allowed in the gates. Which sounds like a better plan than giving the Taliban a list of all their names.I'll watch the film adaptation when it comes out.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/27/us-vets-volunteer-to-secretly-rescue-allies-in-afghanistan/
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020210902%2010.jpg)
No, it's not a photoshop. https://twitter.com/StateDeptSpox/status/1432509849141657601
I just... why? Why would you post something this... vapid, this stupid? Why? Who is running things?
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020210902%2010.jpg)
No, it's not a photoshop. https://twitter.com/StateDeptSpox/status/1432509849141657601
I just... why? Why would you post something this... vapid, this stupid? Why? Who is running things?
A number of news sources, mostly conservative of course, are reporting that a group of US veterans, including Green Berets and SEALs, flew to Kabul and conducted a number of sorties to rescue the Afghanis they'd worked with. Including family members, they rescued several hundred over the course of a week (reports vary, but all are 500 or more). They called their mission the Pineapple Express, because they were telling their contacts to say the word pineapple, or a show a pineapple on their phones, to be allowed in the gates. Which sounds like a better plan than giving the Taliban a list of all their names.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/27/us-vets-volunteer-to-secretly-rescue-allies-in-afghanistan/
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020210902%2010.jpg)
No, it's not a photoshop. https://twitter.com/StateDeptSpox/status/1432509849141657601
I just... why? Why would you post something this... vapid, this stupid? Why? Who is running things?
Meanwhile the first Taliban land in the USA ::):
Meanwhile the first Taliban land in the USA ::):
Meanwhile the first Taliban land in the USA ::):
How is this about Biden's presidency?
Meanwhile the first Taliban land in the USA ::):
How is this about Biden's presidency?
He was taken flatfooted twice and both times women rights plummeted?
Considering that this law...
"...Leaves enforcement up to individual citizens, who could collect cash bounties of at least $10,000 for bringing successful lawsuits against women who seek abortion after their sixth week of pregnancy or those who help them."
...Expect for every crypto-Taliban around to start fapping. Who needs Afghanistan when you can have it right at home? ::)
Meanwhile the first Taliban land in the USA ::):
How is this about Biden's presidency?
He was taken flatfooted twice and both times women rights plummeted?
Considering that this law...
"...Leaves enforcement up to individual citizens, who could collect cash bounties of at least $10,000 for bringing successful lawsuits against women who seek abortion after their sixth week of pregnancy or those who help them."
...Expect for every crypto-Taliban around to start fapping. Who needs Afghanistan when you can have it right at home? ::)
The provision cannot be used against pregnant people, but reproductive rights advocates warn it can be used to target abortion providers and abortion-rights activists.https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/998237349/the-governor-of-texas-has-signed-a-law-that-bans-abortion-as-early-as-6-weeks
Same questions, thoughts.Meanwhile the first Taliban land in the USA ::):
How is this about Biden's presidency?
He was taken flatfooted twice and both times women rights plummeted?
Considering that this law...
"...Leaves enforcement up to individual citizens, who could collect cash bounties of at least $10,000 for bringing successful lawsuits against women who seek abortion after their sixth week of pregnancy or those who help them."
...Expect for every crypto-Taliban around to start fapping. Who needs Afghanistan when you can have it right at home? ::)
I just want all the "pro choice" people to say out loud they are simply pro abortion. I am not a religious person, or spiritual. But I do wonder that if there is an afterlife, how that particular issue will be judged. I never understood how it was made a blanket "right" for the entire country based on a woman who lied about being raped to get an abortion. I say if women want to end a life, go right ahead, probably best for the terminated fetus anyway.
I do find it amusing the left tries to equate the right to the Taliban? False equivalency really. As yet I haven’t seen the right acting in the same manner as the Taliban or cases of homosexuals being hurled off buildings.One might compare it to idea of a "Taliban" hurling babies off buildings.
Seems quite a stretch for those making the assertions.
https://zogbyanalytics.com/news/1035-the-zogby-poll-one-fifth-of-likely-voters-and-democrats-regret-voting-for-biden
20% of Biden voters regret voting for him. Considering that 20% of 80 million is 16 million, and the last last election was decided by a few tens of thousands of votes in key states, it's not looking good for Team Blue in the midterms.
The demographic breakdown also has shows softening in Biden's traditional base. Black and young voters were more likely to regret their vote (25% and 27%), and it's highest of all among Hispanics (33%). Regret is unexpectedly high among urban voters, as well (28%).
10 years ago I would have agreed with you, but considering how destructive the Democratic party has become and how the Republican's idea of resistance is giving the progressives half what they want instead of all of it, gridlock isn't what it used to be. Look at how many trillions the Republicans just acceded to. So I'm torn between keeping the progressives away from any levers of power at all, and giving them full control and letting them run everything into the ground. Is it better to slowly pull off the bandage, or rip it off?https://zogbyanalytics.com/news/1035-the-zogby-poll-one-fifth-of-likely-voters-and-democrats-regret-voting-for-biden
20% of Biden voters regret voting for him. Considering that 20% of 80 million is 16 million, and the last last election was decided by a few tens of thousands of votes in key states, it's not looking good for Team Blue in the midterms.
The demographic breakdown also has shows softening in Biden's traditional base. Black and young voters were more likely to regret their vote (25% and 27%), and it's highest of all among Hispanics (33%). Regret is unexpectedly high among urban voters, as well (28%).
I don't know about the accuracy of this particular poll but I agree with your premise that it's not looking good for Democrats in the midterms.
And in general that's how I prefer things: one party in control of Congress, and the other party in control of the Presidency. This tends to lead to the least amount of damage to society, other than it provides for zero hope to ever fix things like campaign finance reform and lobbying, because those are topics both parties can corruptly agree on together.
That said, the USSC better get to dealing with that Texas abortion issue well before the midterms. Nothing riles up the Democratic base more than the abortion issue. It is to Democrats what a total handgun confiscation and ban would be to Republicans.
And if the consequences landed solely on their heads, I'd agree.10 years ago I would have agreed with you, but considering how destructive the Democratic party has become and how the Republican's idea of resistance is giving the progressives half what they want instead of all of it, gridlock isn't what it used to be. Look at how many trillions the Republicans just acceded to. So I'm torn between keeping the progressives away from any levers of power at all, and giving them full control and letting them run everything into the ground. Is it better to slowly pull off the bandage, or rip it off?https://zogbyanalytics.com/news/1035-the-zogby-poll-one-fifth-of-likely-voters-and-democrats-regret-voting-for-biden
20% of Biden voters regret voting for him. Considering that 20% of 80 million is 16 million, and the last last election was decided by a few tens of thousands of votes in key states, it's not looking good for Team Blue in the midterms.
The demographic breakdown also has shows softening in Biden's traditional base. Black and young voters were more likely to regret their vote (25% and 27%), and it's highest of all among Hispanics (33%). Regret is unexpectedly high among urban voters, as well (28%).
I don't know about the accuracy of this particular poll but I agree with your premise that it's not looking good for Democrats in the midterms.
And in general that's how I prefer things: one party in control of Congress, and the other party in control of the Presidency. This tends to lead to the least amount of damage to society, other than it provides for zero hope to ever fix things like campaign finance reform and lobbying, because those are topics both parties can corruptly agree on together.
That said, the USSC better get to dealing with that Texas abortion issue well before the midterms. Nothing riles up the Democratic base more than the abortion issue. It is to Democrats what a total handgun confiscation and ban would be to Republicans.
All of them, but I don't see it as a choice between harming innocents and not harming innocents. I see it as a bad situation that will only be ended by an even worse situation. In that case, do you continue along in indefinite misery, or do you let everything blow up?And if the consequences landed solely on their heads, I'd agree.10 years ago I would have agreed with you, but considering how destructive the Democratic party has become and how the Republican's idea of resistance is giving the progressives half what they want instead of all of it, gridlock isn't what it used to be. Look at how many trillions the Republicans just acceded to. So I'm torn between keeping the progressives away from any levers of power at all, and giving them full control and letting them run everything into the ground. Is it better to slowly pull off the bandage, or rip it off?https://zogbyanalytics.com/news/1035-the-zogby-poll-one-fifth-of-likely-voters-and-democrats-regret-voting-for-biden
20% of Biden voters regret voting for him. Considering that 20% of 80 million is 16 million, and the last last election was decided by a few tens of thousands of votes in key states, it's not looking good for Team Blue in the midterms.
The demographic breakdown also has shows softening in Biden's traditional base. Black and young voters were more likely to regret their vote (25% and 27%), and it's highest of all among Hispanics (33%). Regret is unexpectedly high among urban voters, as well (28%).
I don't know about the accuracy of this particular poll but I agree with your premise that it's not looking good for Democrats in the midterms.
And in general that's how I prefer things: one party in control of Congress, and the other party in control of the Presidency. This tends to lead to the least amount of damage to society, other than it provides for zero hope to ever fix things like campaign finance reform and lobbying, because those are topics both parties can corruptly agree on together.
That said, the USSC better get to dealing with that Texas abortion issue well before the midterms. Nothing riles up the Democratic base more than the abortion issue. It is to Democrats what a total handgun confiscation and ban would be to Republicans.
But how many innocents will be caught up in the gears of the fuck up brigade?
I vote for helicopter rides.All of them, but I don't see it as a choice between harming innocents and not harming innocents. I see it as a bad situation that will only be ended by an even worse situation. In that case, do you continue along in indefinite misery, or do you let everything blow up?And if the consequences landed solely on their heads, I'd agree.10 years ago I would have agreed with you, but considering how destructive the Democratic party has become and how the Republican's idea of resistance is giving the progressives half what they want instead of all of it, gridlock isn't what it used to be. Look at how many trillions the Republicans just acceded to. So I'm torn between keeping the progressives away from any levers of power at all, and giving them full control and letting them run everything into the ground. Is it better to slowly pull off the bandage, or rip it off?https://zogbyanalytics.com/news/1035-the-zogby-poll-one-fifth-of-likely-voters-and-democrats-regret-voting-for-biden
20% of Biden voters regret voting for him. Considering that 20% of 80 million is 16 million, and the last last election was decided by a few tens of thousands of votes in key states, it's not looking good for Team Blue in the midterms.
The demographic breakdown also has shows softening in Biden's traditional base. Black and young voters were more likely to regret their vote (25% and 27%), and it's highest of all among Hispanics (33%). Regret is unexpectedly high among urban voters, as well (28%).
I don't know about the accuracy of this particular poll but I agree with your premise that it's not looking good for Democrats in the midterms.
And in general that's how I prefer things: one party in control of Congress, and the other party in control of the Presidency. This tends to lead to the least amount of damage to society, other than it provides for zero hope to ever fix things like campaign finance reform and lobbying, because those are topics both parties can corruptly agree on together.
That said, the USSC better get to dealing with that Texas abortion issue well before the midterms. Nothing riles up the Democratic base more than the abortion issue. It is to Democrats what a total handgun confiscation and ban would be to Republicans.
But how many innocents will be caught up in the gears of the fuck up brigade?
“Yesterday, the Taliban named a new interim government. We are assessing the announcement, but despite professing that a new government would be inclusive, the announced list of names consists exclusively of individuals who are members of the Taliban or their close associates, and no women,” Blinken said.
Speaking of people who need helicopter rides.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/08/antony-blinken-taliban-cabinet-inclusive-diversity-women-afghanistan/Quote“Yesterday, the Taliban named a new interim government. We are assessing the announcement, but despite professing that a new government would be inclusive, the announced list of names consists exclusively of individuals who are members of the Taliban or their close associates, and no women,” Blinken said.
Jesus Christ. We are being led by absolute morons. Why the fuck would anyone think the Taliban give a shit about diversity?
Because leftists think based on how they want things to be rather than how they really are.
And regarding abortion- isn't it unjust that the father has no say? If he's ready and willing to raise the child too bad, but if she has the child he is stuck with child support? It's darkly amusing to hear the very people who insist "gender is a social construct" suddenly point out that women get pregnant, not men.
Because leftists think based on how they want things to be rather than how they really are.
And regarding abortion- isn't it unjust that the father has no say? If he's ready and willing to raise the child too bad, but if she has the child he is stuck with child support? It's darkly amusing to hear the very people who insist "gender is a social construct" suddenly point out that women get pregnant, not men.
The feminists hitched their wagon to the ideology of deconstructing gender roles. Most of them seem to have not realized that eventually they'd get around to deconstructing the idea of sex itself.
Thus the whole TERF kerfuffle.
Why would it matter whether people stopped liking Biden if all elections are stolen?Do any but a tiny minority (20% or less) of Democrats actually like Biden? The rest just voted "Not Trump" under the cult-like chant of "Vote Blue, No Matter Who", which in itself, is admission that they have no candidates worth supporting on their own merits. And any polls claiming support are full of people just wanting the polls to say so, and voting accordingly.
Why would it matter whether people stopped liking Biden if all elections are stolen?Do any but a tiny minority (20% or less) of Democrats actually like Biden? The rest just voted "Not Trump" under the cult-like chant of "Vote Blue, No Matter Who", which in itself, is admission that they have no candidates worth supporting on their own merits. And any polls claiming support are full of people just wanting the polls to say so, and voting accordingly.
The increasing number of immigrants in the first half of the nineteenth century created new tensions. Catholic immigrants drew public hostility because of their poverty;
the diseases they brought with them after the perilous ocean voyage; the slum housing they were forced to live in; and the dramatic rise in crime rates, alcoholism, and the poverty rolls that occurred after their arrival. Many American-born Protestants, equating their English heritage with “true” Americanism, despised the desperately poor Irish and feared the Germans, who spoke a strange new language. The antialiens were nativists, convinced that opposition to the growing minority of Catholic immigrants was necessary to protect their America.
Founded in Iowa in 1887, the APA had attracted a membership of 500,000 by 1895. While its leaders focused on fears of Irish Catholic control of bigcity political machines and educational institutions, the organization’s members focused on assaulting the “alien” ways of the “new immigrants.” They believed these people were the inferior “refuse of Europe” and could never be
assimilated into U.S. culture.
You're not saying anything new - just slightly more vulgarly.QuoteThe increasing number of immigrants in the first half of the nineteenth century created new tensions. Catholic immigrants drew public hostility because of their poverty;
the diseases they brought with them after the perilous ocean voyage; the slum housing they were forced to live in; and the dramatic rise in crime rates, alcoholism, and the poverty rolls that occurred after their arrival. Many American-born Protestants, equating their English heritage with “true” Americanism, despised the desperately poor Irish and feared the Germans, who spoke a strange new language. The antialiens were nativists, convinced that opposition to the growing minority of Catholic immigrants was necessary to protect their America.QuoteFounded in Iowa in 1887, the APA had attracted a membership of 500,000 by 1895. While its leaders focused on fears of Irish Catholic control of bigcity political machines and educational institutions, the organization’s members focused on assaulting the “alien” ways of the “new immigrants.” They believed these people were the inferior “refuse of Europe” and could never be
assimilated into U.S. culture.
Source (https://www.gale.com/binaries/content/assets/gale-us-en/primary-sources/newsvault/gps_newsvault_19thcentury_usnewspapers_immigration_essay.pdf)
America has never become weaker by accepting immigrants, but the same arguments get made every time a new immigrant group gets tossed in the mix. Whether it's the Irish, or the Chinese, the Mexicans, or the Afghans, whatever the current group is is just 'too different' but it turns out people actually WANT to be Americans.
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
The afghans we backed couldnt do jumping jacks, were largely drug addicts, and like banging little kids.They were democrats?
The afghans we backed couldnt do jumping jacks, were largely drug addicts, and like banging little kids.They were democrats?
I'm 20 pages into an interesting academic book on Partisanship.
Stereotypes of Democrats Stereotypes of Republicans
Most frequent response Liberal (19.6%) Conservative (14%)
2nd Open-minded (4.2%) Rich (7.6%)
...
But devolving into a Civil War could be fun, instead.
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
Two out of how many?
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
Two out of how many?
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
Two out of how many?
Oh so it's a numbers game?
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
Two out of how many?
Oh so it's a numbers game?
Sure. Either that, or a look at people who gun rampage in the USA would show how ALL Americans are potential gun rampaging nuts and thus gun sales should be banned.
Bad behaviour is endemic in any ethnicity/slice of population/fandom/various. Were there racist/misogynist tweets against Star Wars? Sure, there were. A small percentage. Lucasfilm, however, attacked those to attack ALL the fandom and, as a result, they still haven't stop crying.
Are there White Supremacists out there? Yup - all fourteen of them. SJW use them to denounce billions of people. Bow your head, you old white male, because someone somewhere is bad!
Denouncing a whole group of people because of some bad behaviour is SJW/Woke-speak in its purest form. So, we have two Afghan refugees accused (accused = guilty is still SJW/Woke-speak, BTW) out of...? Three? Four?
Edit: Well, out of 13,000 it would seem. OK.
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
Two out of how many?
Oh so it's a numbers game?
Sure. Either that, or a look at people who gun rampage in the USA would show how ALL Americans are potential gun rampaging nuts and thus gun sales should be banned.
Bad behaviour is endemic in any ethnicity/slice of population/fandom/various. Were there racist/misogynist tweets against Star Wars? Sure, there were. A small percentage. Lucasfilm, however, attacked those to attack ALL the fandom and, as a result, they still haven't stop crying.
Are there White Supremacists out there? Yup - all fourteen of them. SJW use them to denounce billions of people. Bow your head, you old white male, because someone somewhere is bad!
Denouncing a whole group of people because of some bad behaviour is SJW/Woke-speak in its purest form. So, we have two Afghan refugees accused (accused = guilty is still SJW/Woke-speak, BTW) out of...? Three? Four?
Edit: Well, out of 13,000 it would seem. OK.
The problem with that, is comparing citizens who YOU HAVE TO deal with, warts and all, to refugees, who you have zero obligations to.
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
Two out of how many?
Oh so it's a numbers game?
Sure. Either that, or a look at people who gun rampage in the USA would show how ALL Americans are potential gun rampaging nuts and thus gun sales should be banned.
Bad behaviour is endemic in any ethnicity/slice of population/fandom/various. Were there racist/misogynist tweets against Star Wars? Sure, there were. A small percentage. Lucasfilm, however, attacked those to attack ALL the fandom and, as a result, they still haven't stop crying.
Are there White Supremacists out there? Yup - all fourteen of them. SJW use them to denounce billions of people. Bow your head, you old white male, because someone somewhere is bad!
Denouncing a whole group of people because of some bad behaviour is SJW/Woke-speak in its purest form. So, we have two Afghan refugees accused (accused = guilty is still SJW/Woke-speak, BTW) out of...? Three? Four?
Edit: Well, out of 13,000 it would seem. OK.
The problem with that, is comparing citizens who YOU HAVE TO deal with, warts and all, to refugees, who you have zero obligations to.
Apart from invading their country and leaving it 20 years later messier than when you went in, of course.
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
Two out of how many?
Oh so it's a numbers game?
Sure. Either that, or a look at people who gun rampage in the USA would show how ALL Americans are potential gun rampaging nuts and thus gun sales should be banned.
Bad behaviour is endemic in any ethnicity/slice of population/fandom/various. Were there racist/misogynist tweets against Star Wars? Sure, there were. A small percentage. Lucasfilm, however, attacked those to attack ALL the fandom and, as a result, they still haven't stop crying.
Are there White Supremacists out there? Yup - all fourteen of them. SJW use them to denounce billions of people. Bow your head, you old white male, because someone somewhere is bad!
Denouncing a whole group of people because of some bad behaviour is SJW/Woke-speak in its purest form. So, we have two Afghan refugees accused (accused = guilty is still SJW/Woke-speak, BTW) out of...? Three? Four?
Edit: Well, out of 13,000 it would seem. OK.
The problem with that, is comparing citizens who YOU HAVE TO deal with, warts and all, to refugees, who you have zero obligations to.
Apart from invading their country and leaving it 20 years later messier than when you went in, of course.
No. I have zero obligation to those people. Period.
It must be nice to life in a World where you invade enemy countries due to their leaders but you are not responsible at all for their population. So relaxing and mindless... I guess this sums up Biden too.Oggsmash, stop invading foreign nations. You're making Reckall uncomfortable.
It must be nice to life in a World where you invade enemy countries due to their leaders but you are not responsible at all for their population. So relaxing and mindless... I guess this sums up Biden too.Oggsmash, stop invading foreign nations. You're making Reckall uncomfortable.
You have a specific individual in mind? Someone you know is a kid-fucker?
Because I saw people so desperate to live the American dream that they clung to the wings of an airplane as it took to the air - who chose near certain death for a CHANCE to make a better life.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-afghan-refugees-charged-with-child-sex-spousal-abuse-crimes-at-fort-mccoy/ar-AAOIuhy?ocid=uxbndlbing
Cue the sad trombone.
Two out of how many?
Oh so it's a numbers game?
Sure. Either that, or a look at people who gun rampage in the USA would show how ALL Americans are potential gun rampaging nuts and thus gun sales should be banned.
Bad behaviour is endemic in any ethnicity/slice of population/fandom/various. Were there racist/misogynist tweets against Star Wars? Sure, there were. A small percentage. Lucasfilm, however, attacked those to attack ALL the fandom and, as a result, they still haven't stop crying.
Are there White Supremacists out there? Yup - all fourteen of them. SJW use them to denounce billions of people. Bow your head, you old white male, because someone somewhere is bad!
Denouncing a whole group of people because of some bad behaviour is SJW/Woke-speak in its purest form. So, we have two Afghan refugees accused (accused = guilty is still SJW/Woke-speak, BTW) out of...? Three? Four?
Edit: Well, out of 13,000 it would seem. OK.
The problem with that, is comparing citizens who YOU HAVE TO deal with, warts and all, to refugees, who you have zero obligations to.
Apart from invading their country and leaving it 20 years later messier than when you went in, of course.
No. I have zero obligation to those people. Period.
It must be nice to life in a World where you invade enemy countries due to their leaders but you are not responsible at all for their population. So relaxing and mindless... I guess this sums up Biden too.
Seeing eggs on someone's face makes me uncomfortable, yes :DIt must be nice to life in a World where you invade enemy countries due to their leaders but you are not responsible at all for their population. So relaxing and mindless... I guess this sums up Biden too.Oggsmash, stop invading foreign nations. You're making Reckall uncomfortable.
It must be nice to life in a World where you invade enemy countries due to their leaders but you are not responsible at all for their population. So relaxing and mindless... I guess this sums up Biden too.Oggsmash, stop invading foreign nations. You're making Reckall uncomfortable.
No shit. I vote against all the invaders, and now I am responsible. Not sure he understands a thing.
IF I scream at someone to not fuck something up, over and over, and they go and fuck it up, I do not understand how I am responsible.
Mindless is thinking the political class in any way represents the population in the USA.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
Yeah, American women are already being fucking RAPED by the goddamn Afghan "Refugees".They are just getting started.
Pogroms: coming soon to a community near you.
I'm not exactly smiling at this. Pogroms aren't a good thing.Pogroms: coming soon to a community near you.
Just put them in camps along with the people of Innsmouth: problem solved! :D
It must be nice to life in a World where you invade enemy countries due to their leaders but you are not responsible at all for their population. So relaxing and mindless... I guess this sums up Biden too.Oggsmash, stop invading foreign nations. You're making Reckall uncomfortable.
No shit. I vote against all the invaders, and now I am responsible. Not sure he understands a thing.
Let's say that you are not sure in a general sense.QuoteIF I scream at someone to not fuck something up, over and over, and they go and fuck it up, I do not understand how I am responsible.
So, you were against going in Afghanistan after 9/11?QuoteMindless is thinking the political class in any way represents the population in the USA.
Then maybe the "population in the USA" has some work to do.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
I'm not exactly smiling at this. Pogroms aren't a good thing.Pogroms: coming soon to a community near you.
Just put them in camps along with the people of Innsmouth: problem solved! :D
True. But pogroms aren't healthy from a moral standpoint, and they're not exactly discerning either.I'm not exactly smiling at this. Pogroms aren't a good thing.Pogroms: coming soon to a community near you.
Just put them in camps along with the people of Innsmouth: problem solved! :D
Well you're not a leftist who wants us all disarmed...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
Go petition your government to let rapey Afghans in. Italy is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
Finally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
Go petition your government to let rapey Afghans in. Italy is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
Finally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
Greetings!
Yeah, we should let several hundred thousand Aghan refugees immigrate to Italy. Why stop there, though? Let a million and more Afghans pour into Italy. Italy can house them, feed them, and support them in every way. For *years*.
And, well, there shouldn't be any complaints when young, bearded Afghan men start raping the fuck out of the nice, sweet Italian girls, right? It's just more international "diversity" for Italy.
And Italy can also pick up the tab for all the brats born to the Italian girls from getting ploughed by the bearded Afghan men. It's good for Italy to become more diverse. Get some new breeding going on in there. Some new, strange languages, entirely new customs and culture, and well, of course, more peaceful Islam. Yeah. More Muslims pouring into Italy. See? That way Italy gets the full serving of diversity--diverse culture, diverse language, diverse religion--and more diverse breeding.
I wonder how Italy would like that? Somehow, I don't think they would be thrilled, from what I've heard in the news. Unsurprisingly, Americans aren't fucking thrilled and overjoyed about hundreds of thousands of Afghans pouring into our country either.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
Go petition your government to let rapey Afghans in. Italy is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
Finally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
Greetings!
Yeah, we should let several hundred thousand Aghan refugees immigrate to Italy. Why stop there, though? Let a million and more Afghans pour into Italy. Italy can house them, feed them, and support them in every way. For *years*.
And, well, there shouldn't be any complaints when young, bearded Afghan men start raping the fuck out of the nice, sweet Italian girls, right? It's just more international "diversity" for Italy.
And Italy can also pick up the tab for all the brats born to the Italian girls from getting ploughed by the bearded Afghan men. It's good for Italy to become more diverse. Get some new breeding going on in there. Some new, strange languages, entirely new customs and culture, and well, of course, more peaceful Islam. Yeah. More Muslims pouring into Italy. See? That way Italy gets the full serving of diversity--diverse culture, diverse language, diverse religion--and more diverse breeding.
I wonder how Italy would like that? Somehow, I don't think they would be thrilled, from what I've heard in the news. Unsurprisingly, Americans aren't fucking thrilled and overjoyed about hundreds of thousands of Afghans pouring into our country either.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hey come on now. Other economic migrants from other countries have been successful, ergo, the Afghans will be successful!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
Go petition your government to let rapey Afghans in.
Italy is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
Finally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
Go petition your government to let rapey Afghans in. Italy is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
Finally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
Greetings!
Yeah, we should let several hundred thousand Aghan refugees immigrate to Italy. Why stop there, though? Let a million and more Afghans pour into Italy. Italy can house them, feed them, and support them in every way. For *years*.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
Go petition your government to let rapey Afghans in. Italy is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
Finally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
Greetings!
Yeah, we should let several hundred thousand Aghan refugees immigrate to Italy. Why stop there, though? Let a million and more Afghans pour into Italy. Italy can house them, feed them, and support them in every way. For *years*.
Why not? After all the war in Afghanistan was initiated, fought and ended by us and us alone. Isn't it? 😂
And, as a bonus, it'll go a long way in invigorating the bloodlines of the Italian people. Let's face it, between the mass emigration of the early 20th century and that absolute ass-whooping of the Italians by both sides of the conflict in WW2, there's not much cultural or societal vigor left. Italy took a huge hit from Covid because their population is older and frail. Honestly, no one even thinks about Italy unless they need to film a movie or TV series about ancient Rome. Italy is pretty much irrelevant. And infusion of young, vigorous, Afghani blood might do wonders for the population. At least it has a chance to spark an old, dead, irrelevant culture into something perhaps more lively. So, yeah, more migrants to Italy!https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
Go petition your government to let rapey Afghans in. Italy is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
Finally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
Greetings!
Yeah, we should let several hundred thousand Aghan refugees immigrate to Italy. Why stop there, though? Let a million and more Afghans pour into Italy. Italy can house them, feed them, and support them in every way. For *years*.
Why not? After all the war in Afghanistan was initiated, fought and ended by us and us alone. Isn't it? 😂
And, as a bonus, it'll go a long way in invigorating the bloodlines of the Italian people. Let's face it, between the mass emigration of the early 20th century and that absolute ass-whooping of the Italians by both sides of the conflict in WW2, there's not much cultural or societal vigor left. Italy took a huge hit from Covid because their population is older and frail. Honestly, no one even thinks about Italy unless they need to film a movie or TV series about ancient Rome. Italy is pretty much irrelevant. And infusion of young, vigorous, Afghani blood might do wonders for the population. At least it has a chance to spark an old, dead, irrelevant culture into something perhaps more lively. So, yeah, more migrants to Italy!https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
Go petition your government to let rapey Afghans in. Italy is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
Finally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
Greetings!
Yeah, we should let several hundred thousand Aghan refugees immigrate to Italy. Why stop there, though? Let a million and more Afghans pour into Italy. Italy can house them, feed them, and support them in every way. For *years*.
Why not? After all the war in Afghanistan was initiated, fought and ended by us and us alone. Isn't it? 😂
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
You government "lets in fuckups from the world over" since before it was a government. Have you ever studied North American history?QuoteGo petition your government to let rapey Afghans in.
They are already doing that. For now, they are on the fence about gun shooting spree Americans.QuoteItaly is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
You are welcome. :) We pulled out without fuckups, BTW.QuoteFinally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
You mean that you took Afghanistan from the Taliban, invested trillions of dollars in the country that they didn't have and then gave it back to them? For real? Wow... :o
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
You government "lets in fuckups from the world over" since before it was a government. Have you ever studied North American history?QuoteGo petition your government to let rapey Afghans in.
They are already doing that. For now, they are on the fence about gun shooting spree Americans.QuoteItaly is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
You are welcome. :) We pulled out without fuckups, BTW.QuoteFinally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
You mean that you took Afghanistan from the Taliban, invested trillions of dollars in the country that they didn't have and then gave it back to them? For real? Wow... :o
Dude you think you're owning me but you're not.
1. Yes my shitty government lets fuckups from the world over to enter. Most notably, 12,000 Haitians who had been living comfortably in Chile and other South American countries. I utterly despise this.
2. Why would any nation let in a spree shooter?
3. Yeah, you left without a massive disaster, great. Italy was still part of the NATO mission and bears guilt. You were still part of the hated foreign invaders.
4. Italy was part of this stupid, wasteful spending in Afghanistan as well. Of course not on nearly so great a scale.
You seem to think we conservatives are pro-Afghan war. Not in any way shape or form.
And, as a bonus, it'll go a long way in invigorating the bloodlines of the Italian people. Let's face it, between the mass emigration of the early 20th century and that absolute ass-whooping of the Italians by both sides of the conflict in WW2, there's not much cultural or societal vigor left. Italy took a huge hit from Covid because their population is older and frail. Honestly, no one even thinks about Italy unless they need to film a movie or TV series about ancient Rome. Italy is pretty much irrelevant. And infusion of young, vigorous, Afghani blood might do wonders for the population. At least it has a chance to spark an old, dead, irrelevant culture into something perhaps more lively. So, yeah, more migrants to Italy!https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
Go petition your government to let rapey Afghans in. Italy is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
Finally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
Greetings!
Yeah, we should let several hundred thousand Aghan refugees immigrate to Italy. Why stop there, though? Let a million and more Afghans pour into Italy. Italy can house them, feed them, and support them in every way. For *years*.
Why not? After all the war in Afghanistan was initiated, fought and ended by us and us alone. Isn't it? 😂
I do not care if it collapsed. I do believe in the will of the people, and the people there wanted the Taliban in charge, plain and simple. If billions of dollars of the best equipment and training for 20 years can not get it done, it was never going to be done. My problem now, is the name beatches who fled with not a iota of fight are coming to the USA now. People keep talking about who the USA has let immigrate, well in years long past, there was no social safety net for immigrants or others. If you couldnt make it, you left rather than starve. Now we give anyone who wants it money, food, and housing. We are not bringing in the people that drive economies, or at least not that drive them upwards. Enjoy the decline.Not the point, ogg, though you're not wrong.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
You government "lets in fuckups from the world over" since before it was a government. Have you ever studied North American history?QuoteGo petition your government to let rapey Afghans in.
They are already doing that. For now, they are on the fence about gun shooting spree Americans.QuoteItaly is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
You are welcome. :) We pulled out without fuckups, BTW.QuoteFinally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
You mean that you took Afghanistan from the Taliban, invested trillions of dollars in the country that they didn't have and then gave it back to them? For real? Wow... :o
Dude you think you're owning me but you're not.
Not the best opening.Quote1. Yes my shitty government lets fuckups from the world over to enter. Most notably, 12,000 Haitians who had been living comfortably in Chile and other South American countries. I utterly despise this.
Don't forget Europeans.Quote2. Why would any nation let in a spree shooter?
You mean that not all Americans are spree shooters the way not all Afghani are rapists? I learn this only now :oQuote3. Yeah, you left without a massive disaster, great. Italy was still part of the NATO mission and bears guilt. You were still part of the hated foreign invaders.
Amen to that. Next time it will be better not to follow the "World's policemen".Quote4. Italy was part of this stupid, wasteful spending in Afghanistan as well. Of course not on nearly so great a scale.
We took an oath of allegiance and we did our duty as a NATO country. If you think that it was wrong, then next time don't invoke Article 5 before going in.QuoteYou seem to think we conservatives are pro-Afghan war. Not in any way shape or form.
What I think about "you conservatives" is that since a few years you do seem to be a very confused people. In all fairness, the other side of the aisle doesn't seem much better.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-bliss-female-military-service-member-assaulted-by-afghan-evacuees-fbi-investigating/ar-AAOOhbh?ocid=spartanntp
The guilty Afghan bastards that RAPED the American woman should be promptly fucking strung up and hung.
But, mind it, only if he is Afghan. If he is American - or from Ecuador if it matters - he gets a pass.
Fuck someone from Ecuador. They don't belong here either. And yeah dude my countrymen are my countrymen, even if they're fuck ups. I don't need to let in fuck ups from the world over, even though that's what out government does.
You government "lets in fuckups from the world over" since before it was a government. Have you ever studied North American history?QuoteGo petition your government to let rapey Afghans in.
They are already doing that. For now, they are on the fence about gun shooting spree Americans.QuoteItaly is part of NATO after all and supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy houses US troops, warehouses US equipment and provides overflight privileges.
You are welcome. :) We pulled out without fuckups, BTW.QuoteFinally, Afghanistan is much better off in a material sense, after 20 years and trillions of dollars.
You mean that you took Afghanistan from the Taliban, invested trillions of dollars in the country that they didn't have and then gave it back to them? For real? Wow... :o
Dude you think you're owning me but you're not.
Not the best opening.Quote1. Yes my shitty government lets fuckups from the world over to enter. Most notably, 12,000 Haitians who had been living comfortably in Chile and other South American countries. I utterly despise this.
Don't forget Europeans.Quote2. Why would any nation let in a spree shooter?
You mean that not all Americans are spree shooters the way not all Afghani are rapists? I learn this only now :oQuote3. Yeah, you left without a massive disaster, great. Italy was still part of the NATO mission and bears guilt. You were still part of the hated foreign invaders.
Amen to that. Next time it will be better not to follow the "World's policemen".Quote4. Italy was part of this stupid, wasteful spending in Afghanistan as well. Of course not on nearly so great a scale.
We took an oath of allegiance and we did our duty as a NATO country. If you think that it was wrong, then next time don't invoke Article 5 before going in.QuoteYou seem to think we conservatives are pro-Afghan war. Not in any way shape or form.
What I think about "you conservatives" is that since a few years you do seem to be a very confused people. In all fairness, the other side of the aisle doesn't seem much better.
I do not care if it collapsed. I do believe in the will of the people, and the people there wanted the Taliban in charge, plain and simple. If billions of dollars of the best equipment and training for 20 years can not get it done, it was never going to be done. My problem now, is the name beatches who fled with not a iota of fight are coming to the USA now. People keep talking about who the USA has let immigrate, well in years long past, there was no social safety net for immigrants or others. If you couldnt make it, you left rather than starve. Now we give anyone who wants it money, food, and housing. We are not bringing in the people that drive economies, or at least not that drive them upwards. Enjoy the decline.Not the point, ogg, though you're not wrong.
The fact is that the regime insists they totally didn't expect this, and now the generals are directly contradicting them.
Internal schisms within the regime are always ripe for opportunities.
I don't think they expected things to come unglued like this. And it lends credence to the theory that there's a behind-the-scenes civil war going on between various factions of the regime.I do not care if it collapsed. I do believe in the will of the people, and the people there wanted the Taliban in charge, plain and simple. If billions of dollars of the best equipment and training for 20 years can not get it done, it was never going to be done. My problem now, is the name beatches who fled with not a iota of fight are coming to the USA now. People keep talking about who the USA has let immigrate, well in years long past, there was no social safety net for immigrants or others. If you couldnt make it, you left rather than starve. Now we give anyone who wants it money, food, and housing. We are not bringing in the people that drive economies, or at least not that drive them upwards. Enjoy the decline.Not the point, ogg, though you're not wrong.
The fact is that the regime insists they totally didn't expect this, and now the generals are directly contradicting them.
Internal schisms within the regime are always ripe for opportunities.
I am sure they all expected it, and are now engaging in pre planned political theatre. Generals are more political than actual politicians.
I don't think they expected things to come unglued like this. And it lends credence to the theory that there's a behind-the-scenes civil war going on between various factions of the regime.I do not care if it collapsed. I do believe in the will of the people, and the people there wanted the Taliban in charge, plain and simple. If billions of dollars of the best equipment and training for 20 years can not get it done, it was never going to be done. My problem now, is the name beatches who fled with not a iota of fight are coming to the USA now. People keep talking about who the USA has let immigrate, well in years long past, there was no social safety net for immigrants or others. If you couldnt make it, you left rather than starve. Now we give anyone who wants it money, food, and housing. We are not bringing in the people that drive economies, or at least not that drive them upwards. Enjoy the decline.Not the point, ogg, though you're not wrong.
The fact is that the regime insists they totally didn't expect this, and now the generals are directly contradicting them.
Internal schisms within the regime are always ripe for opportunities.
I am sure they all expected it, and are now engaging in pre planned political theatre. Generals are more political than actual politicians.
Anyone heard from Heels-Up recently?
That's because she thought they said "border whores" and was afraid they were importing competition...I don't think they expected things to come unglued like this. And it lends credence to the theory that there's a behind-the-scenes civil war going on between various factions of the regime.I do not care if it collapsed. I do believe in the will of the people, and the people there wanted the Taliban in charge, plain and simple. If billions of dollars of the best equipment and training for 20 years can not get it done, it was never going to be done. My problem now, is the name beatches who fled with not a iota of fight are coming to the USA now. People keep talking about who the USA has let immigrate, well in years long past, there was no social safety net for immigrants or others. If you couldnt make it, you left rather than starve. Now we give anyone who wants it money, food, and housing. We are not bringing in the people that drive economies, or at least not that drive them upwards. Enjoy the decline.Not the point, ogg, though you're not wrong.
The fact is that the regime insists they totally didn't expect this, and now the generals are directly contradicting them.
Internal schisms within the regime are always ripe for opportunities.
I am sure they all expected it, and are now engaging in pre planned political theatre. Generals are more political than actual politicians.
Anyone heard from Heels-Up recently?
I think she commented on the border horse "controversey". Then slunk back into whatever hole she hides in.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/09/generals-contradict-biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-lloyd-billingsley-0/
Alexa, play 'Dance A Little Sidestep' for me.
Jesus. I have to admit, my personal favorite in this article is Gen. Milley talking about how 'I don’t discuss exactly what my conversations are with a sitting president in the Oval Office.' Unless it's with China, right Milley? Fucker.
I don't think they expected things to come unglued like this. And it lends credence to the theory that there's a behind-the-scenes civil war going on between various factions of the regime.I do not care if it collapsed. I do believe in the will of the people, and the people there wanted the Taliban in charge, plain and simple. If billions of dollars of the best equipment and training for 20 years can not get it done, it was never going to be done. My problem now, is the name beatches who fled with not a iota of fight are coming to the USA now. People keep talking about who the USA has let immigrate, well in years long past, there was no social safety net for immigrants or others. If you couldnt make it, you left rather than starve. Now we give anyone who wants it money, food, and housing. We are not bringing in the people that drive economies, or at least not that drive them upwards. Enjoy the decline.Not the point, ogg, though you're not wrong.
The fact is that the regime insists they totally didn't expect this, and now the generals are directly contradicting them.
Internal schisms within the regime are always ripe for opportunities.
I am sure they all expected it, and are now engaging in pre planned political theatre. Generals are more political than actual politicians.
Anyone heard from Heels-Up recently?
ounce of cover....fuck that. I am ready for them to go back to the founding fathers methods of vigorous debate and for these shitheads to beat one another with canes, have duels, and fucking shoot one another. I want to see some real disagreement, and not whatever this theatre is where the worthless shits all "disagree strongly" and then go to the same parties, eat the same cheese, drink the same wine, and get paid by the same lobbyists.See, I think those days are fast-a-coming.
Meanwhile Seoul looks distinctly Korean, clean, low crime, and high trust while Paris looks like this:
As someone who, before Covid, worked in Paris for years and has as his hobby walking around, I can say that those pictures look suspiciously like cherry picking - and I was someone strolling less than a kilometer from Charlie Hebdo when they were hit by the terrorists.