|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I agree that taking in refugees is the minimum. In an ideal world, the international community has predetermined locations where people can flee the country. Even without the whole occupation shtick, the international community should help people leave ALL countries they want to leave. Anyone being forced to stay within a country is an abomination and a shame on the world.
I think Afghanistan as a territory simply needs to be left to its own to find its own way. But anyone who wants to leave should have a home…somewhere else. I don’t have a clue who does that or how, but I think the responsibility falls on humanity as a whole. Anything less would be deprived indifference.
Edit: and just to clarify, I don’t believe people have the right to choose to live in an existing nation. A society must welcome someone in order for them to ethically live there. But everyone should be allowed to leave where they live. I know that’s a weird inconsistency, and I don’t have a way to work that out, but that’s what I believe.
|
On August 21 2021 16:18 Mohdoo wrote:
I agree that taking in refugees is the minimum. In an ideal world, the international community has predetermined locations where people can flee the country. Even without the whole occupation shtick, the international community should help people leave ALL countries they want to leave. Anyone being forced to stay within a country is an abomination and a shame on the world.
I think Afghanistan as a territory simply needs to be left to its own to find its own way. But anyone who wants to leave should have a home…somewhere else. I don’t have a clue who does that or how, but I think the responsibility falls on humanity as a whole. Anything less would be deprived indifference.
Edit: and just to clarify, I don’t believe people have the right to choose to live in an existing nation. A society must welcome someone in order for them to ethically live there. But everyone should be allowed to leave where they live. I know that’s a weird inconsistency, and I don’t have a way to work that out, but that’s what I believe.
Taking in refugees that were fleeing ISIS triggered the rise of the far right in Europe. So maybe in an ideal world there are no refugees? Obviously I agree, we should do the humanitarian thing, but it has consequences.
|
On August 21 2021 11:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2021 09:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone clarify for me what exactly went wrong so far? Have Americans died? From my perspective, nothing has actually gone wrong in Afghanistan yet. The seemingly overnight victory of the Taliban really puts into perspective how badly the entire occupation went. Makes it look like 20 years and 2 trillion dollars went down the drain, and Biden is in the driver’s seat when it happens. It’s not entirely Biden’s fault; there’s 20 years worth of often questionable decisions that can be litigated, and both parties deserve portions of the blame. But there’s no good look here for the president in charge when the entire operation falls apart in record time.
I suppose the majority of that 2 tn was spent on us corporations.
War is just socialism for a specific subset of the economy.
|
On August 21 2021 16:45 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2021 16:18 Mohdoo wrote:
I agree that taking in refugees is the minimum. In an ideal world, the international community has predetermined locations where people can flee the country. Even without the whole occupation shtick, the international community should help people leave ALL countries they want to leave. Anyone being forced to stay within a country is an abomination and a shame on the world.
I think Afghanistan as a territory simply needs to be left to its own to find its own way. But anyone who wants to leave should have a home…somewhere else. I don’t have a clue who does that or how, but I think the responsibility falls on humanity as a whole. Anything less would be deprived indifference.
Edit: and just to clarify, I don’t believe people have the right to choose to live in an existing nation. A society must welcome someone in order for them to ethically live there. But everyone should be allowed to leave where they live. I know that’s a weird inconsistency, and I don’t have a way to work that out, but that’s what I believe. Taking in refugees that were fleeing ISIS triggered the rise of the far right in Europe. So maybe in an ideal world there are no refugees? Obviously I agree, we should do the humanitarian thing, but it has consequences.
Europe is clearly not the closest place to Afghanistan's culture. There is no reason for the world to pretend western countries are the only viable places for these refugees. I think the West has a moral obligation to help with the logistics but from a purely sociological standpoint, it is silly to put them in Europe.
|
On August 21 2021 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2021 15:47 LegalLord wrote:On August 21 2021 14:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The withdrawal has been poorly executed. The problem is not that the Taliban is retaking control (of course not ideal, but basically unavoidable), but that people who have collaborated with western forces are, to varying degrees, being executed. Whether you are a realist or a idealist, this is shitty from a precedence-perspective (gonna be harder to find local allies in the future), and from a be a decent human perspective, as many of these have no doubt been given assurances in the past. Had the Taliban spent 180 days instead for 180 hours retaking control, a lot more people could have been safely evacuated, thus this embarrassing miscalculation has had dire consequences.
However the main mistake happened in like 2003 or whatever, when it was decided that we should try to export democracy to Afghanistan without planning to stay for at least two generations. Ousting Al queda was mostly accomplished in a few years. Everything since then basically feels pretty wasted. The precedent has long been set that alliance with the US is generally a one-way street. It’s just one more data point, but far from the first. What kind of evacuation did you have in mind here? Airlifting of key individuals, or a more general level of support for the larger displaced population? The former definitely happened, and the latter seems very much to be precluded by the fact that the Taliban went for the borders much sooner than it went for the cities. I find it hard to think up a realistic scenario in which US presence allows, say, a million Afghans to leave the country safely, without extending troop deployment for another year. As for being in there for two decades: that reminds me an awful lot of the 2008 presidential campaign, where Bush said 40 years in Iraq, and McCain said 100. The population at large was definitely not on board, and has only become less interested over time in that kind of thing. It’d be a political non-starter. To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of being there for 60 years. I would have preferred 2. But 20 is pointless, as that is an occupation that can easily be waited out, and it is not long enough to cause a cultural shift. A million sounds like too many, but a few thousand is far too few. I can't give a precise number, but I am reading stories about beheadings of collaborators that I believe are not isolated incidents, and I am inclined to argue that those designated for execution by the Taliban should have been helped. This is not just on the US, Norway should have granted asylum to more than we did, I'm guessing this holds true for most involved countries.
Honestly, 20 years is more than enough for a competent security force to be able to break the back of the armed resistance and carry on with minimal external support. Assuming you choose allies for whom that is a real objective, but evidently the US did not.
The problem I'm seeing with getting more people out is the logistics. Whatever number you settle on for evacuating, it's definitely too many to airlift out of one military airport, and probably too many to be tenable to integrate into Europe and the US. The other option would be to establish a humanitarian corridor into Pakistan and/or Central Asia, which could definitely accommodate the numbers you're thinking of but would run deep through Taliban territory and require significant military support to work. Not to mention the problem of filtering for Islamists among the alleged refugees regardless of which path you take.
I realize this is basically saying "we can't save people from dying because we can't figure out the logistics of how to get them out." But... I don't see a strategy here that would work and also not invite disaster.
|
On August 22 2021 01:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2021 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 21 2021 15:47 LegalLord wrote:On August 21 2021 14:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The withdrawal has been poorly executed. The problem is not that the Taliban is retaking control (of course not ideal, but basically unavoidable), but that people who have collaborated with western forces are, to varying degrees, being executed. Whether you are a realist or a idealist, this is shitty from a precedence-perspective (gonna be harder to find local allies in the future), and from a be a decent human perspective, as many of these have no doubt been given assurances in the past. Had the Taliban spent 180 days instead for 180 hours retaking control, a lot more people could have been safely evacuated, thus this embarrassing miscalculation has had dire consequences.
However the main mistake happened in like 2003 or whatever, when it was decided that we should try to export democracy to Afghanistan without planning to stay for at least two generations. Ousting Al queda was mostly accomplished in a few years. Everything since then basically feels pretty wasted. The precedent has long been set that alliance with the US is generally a one-way street. It’s just one more data point, but far from the first. What kind of evacuation did you have in mind here? Airlifting of key individuals, or a more general level of support for the larger displaced population? The former definitely happened, and the latter seems very much to be precluded by the fact that the Taliban went for the borders much sooner than it went for the cities. I find it hard to think up a realistic scenario in which US presence allows, say, a million Afghans to leave the country safely, without extending troop deployment for another year. As for being in there for two decades: that reminds me an awful lot of the 2008 presidential campaign, where Bush said 40 years in Iraq, and McCain said 100. The population at large was definitely not on board, and has only become less interested over time in that kind of thing. It’d be a political non-starter. To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of being there for 60 years. I would have preferred 2. But 20 is pointless, as that is an occupation that can easily be waited out, and it is not long enough to cause a cultural shift. A million sounds like too many, but a few thousand is far too few. I can't give a precise number, but I am reading stories about beheadings of collaborators that I believe are not isolated incidents, and I am inclined to argue that those designated for execution by the Taliban should have been helped. This is not just on the US, Norway should have granted asylum to more than we did, I'm guessing this holds true for most involved countries. Honestly, 20 years is more than enough for a competent security force to be able to break the back of the armed resistance and carry on with minimal external support. Assuming you choose allies for whom that is a real objective, but evidently the US did not. The problem I'm seeing with getting more people out is the logistics. Whatever number you settle on for evacuating, it's definitely too many to airlift out of one military airport, and probably too many to be tenable to integrate into Europe and the US. The other option would be to establish a humanitarian corridor into Pakistan and/or Central Asia, which could definitely accommodate the numbers you're thinking of but would run deep through Taliban territory and require significant military support to work. Not to mention the problem of filtering for Islamists among the alleged refugees regardless of which path you take. I realize this is basically saying "we can't save people from dying because we can't figure out the logistics of how to get them out." But... I don't see a strategy here that would work and also not invite disaster.
Has the Taliban indicated they won't let people leave? Once the West has all their folks out, I think sticking around and helping people go from Afghanistan to Pakistan/Qatar or other culturally "similar" countries makes sense. The US should basically be a taxi service helping refugees leave.
|
|
|
On August 22 2021 01:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2021 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 21 2021 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 21 2021 15:47 LegalLord wrote:On August 21 2021 14:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The withdrawal has been poorly executed. The problem is not that the Taliban is retaking control (of course not ideal, but basically unavoidable), but that people who have collaborated with western forces are, to varying degrees, being executed. Whether you are a realist or a idealist, this is shitty from a precedence-perspective (gonna be harder to find local allies in the future), and from a be a decent human perspective, as many of these have no doubt been given assurances in the past. Had the Taliban spent 180 days instead for 180 hours retaking control, a lot more people could have been safely evacuated, thus this embarrassing miscalculation has had dire consequences.
However the main mistake happened in like 2003 or whatever, when it was decided that we should try to export democracy to Afghanistan without planning to stay for at least two generations. Ousting Al queda was mostly accomplished in a few years. Everything since then basically feels pretty wasted. The precedent has long been set that alliance with the US is generally a one-way street. It’s just one more data point, but far from the first. What kind of evacuation did you have in mind here? Airlifting of key individuals, or a more general level of support for the larger displaced population? The former definitely happened, and the latter seems very much to be precluded by the fact that the Taliban went for the borders much sooner than it went for the cities. I find it hard to think up a realistic scenario in which US presence allows, say, a million Afghans to leave the country safely, without extending troop deployment for another year. As for being in there for two decades: that reminds me an awful lot of the 2008 presidential campaign, where Bush said 40 years in Iraq, and McCain said 100. The population at large was definitely not on board, and has only become less interested over time in that kind of thing. It’d be a political non-starter. To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of being there for 60 years. I would have preferred 2. But 20 is pointless, as that is an occupation that can easily be waited out, and it is not long enough to cause a cultural shift. A million sounds like too many, but a few thousand is far too few. I can't give a precise number, but I am reading stories about beheadings of collaborators that I believe are not isolated incidents, and I am inclined to argue that those designated for execution by the Taliban should have been helped. This is not just on the US, Norway should have granted asylum to more than we did, I'm guessing this holds true for most involved countries. Honestly, 20 years is more than enough for a competent security force to be able to break the back of the armed resistance and carry on with minimal external support. Assuming you choose allies for whom that is a real objective, but evidently the US did not. The problem I'm seeing with getting more people out is the logistics. Whatever number you settle on for evacuating, it's definitely too many to airlift out of one military airport, and probably too many to be tenable to integrate into Europe and the US. The other option would be to establish a humanitarian corridor into Pakistan and/or Central Asia, which could definitely accommodate the numbers you're thinking of but would run deep through Taliban territory and require significant military support to work. Not to mention the problem of filtering for Islamists among the alleged refugees regardless of which path you take. I realize this is basically saying "we can't save people from dying because we can't figure out the logistics of how to get them out." But... I don't see a strategy here that would work and also not invite disaster. Has the Taliban indicated they won't let people leave? Once the West has all their folks out, I think sticking around and helping people go from Afghanistan to Pakistan/Qatar or other culturally "similar" countries makes sense. The US should basically be a taxi service helping refugees leave.
Seems like they're keeping the border locked from both sides in Pakistan. And the northern situation is not a whole lot different.
Unfortunately the alternative is a free pass for militants to spread across the continent, so it's best that the borders not be a free-for-all. A small, well-controlled escape route would be better.
Edit: To my surprise, Iran seems like a possibility - they're apparently taking some decent numbers of refugees right now.
|
|
|
Is this one of those things that will just keep going up and up until supreme court? I don't really understand when things do and don't just keep going up and up
Edit: paging Farvacola lol
|
I mean I wouldnt be surprised, Uber and Lyft's only real innovation seems to be treating employees like shit, so I imagine theyll take this as far as they possibly can.
That being said I dont know shit, so hopefully the lawyerly among us can provide real information lol
|
It's a surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one. Thought they got a pretty permanent one-up on the government when Prop 22 passed by such a wide margin.
|
So.. the Taliban has issued a warning towards the US Troops need to be gone by the end of August or there will be consequences.. so far for keeping it calm lol. Not surprised though, was baffled by some of the comments here about the Taliban going to keep it calm and quiet, they don't think the way we would want them to.
|
On August 23 2021 19:34 [GS]PLACiD wrote:
So.. the Taliban has issued a warning towards the US Troops need to be gone by the end of August or there will be consequences.. so far for keeping it calm lol. Not surprised though, was baffled by some of the comments here about the Taliban going to keep it calm and quiet, they don't think the way we would want them to.
Do you think the August deadline is some arbitrary timeline the Taliban set or when the US told them we would be gone?
|
The answer, for those who don't know, is that it's the US-set date for leaving.
I do not think it unreasonable for the Taliban to say, "that date you set is not going to be extended." That airport that the US is occupying is a zone of conflict and I do not begrudge the Taliban for wanting that not to continue in perpetuity.
|
On August 23 2021 22:16 LegalLord wrote:
The answer, for those who don't know, is that it's the US-set date for leaving.
I do not think it unreasonable for the Taliban to say, "that date you set is not going to be extended." That airport that the US is occupying is a zone of conflict and I do not begrudge the Taliban for wanting that not to continue in perpetuity.
The Taliban is still incredibly well served by just letting the airport continue to ship people out. This makes their lives easier. The more people that leave, the less people to get in their way. They may grumble, but fundamentally, this is a really amazing situation for them, regardless of how long this takes. Within reason, of course.
|
Them making the kabul airport a new alamo would be the dumbest thing possible for them to do. They may want US troops out but they have no real options, they get their supplies from the airport that they're sitting on. Its like besieging a port town and telling everyone inside that they have to leave or starve.
|
On August 24 2021 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2021 22:16 LegalLord wrote:
The answer, for those who don't know, is that it's the US-set date for leaving.
I do not think it unreasonable for the Taliban to say, "that date you set is not going to be extended." That airport that the US is occupying is a zone of conflict and I do not begrudge the Taliban for wanting that not to continue in perpetuity. The Taliban is still incredibly well served by just letting the airport continue to ship people out. This makes their lives easier. The more people that leave, the less people to get in their way. They may grumble, but fundamentally, this is a really amazing situation for them, regardless of how long this takes. Within reason, of course.
The problem is that it basically represents a hostile border crossing that needs to be enforced and causes trouble. Not worth shooting down planes or taking it back by force, but as long as it remains a path in and out of the country it's going to be a border they have to control and a situation where they have to keep rogue elements from starting an unwanted gunfight. Honestly, there's not a government in the world that wouldn't want that kind of mess removed from inside their own country, so it's not really radical for the Taliban to tell the US to GTFO with the quickness.
On the US side, it represents an indefensible and expensive liability that they really would like to get rid of. A little bit of posturing to show that "the Taliban aren't the boss of me!" but the reality is that they can't keep that airport if the Taliban insists on squeezing them out. The only supply route is by air through enemy terrain, which is both expensive and risky. They probably want to be out as soon as feasible as well.
Thankfully it sounds like both sides are doing the sensible thing and negotiating a solution:
State Department spokesman Ned Price confirmed that the future of Hamid Karzai International Airport has been a "topic of discussion with the Taliban."
"I can't go into private discussions, but what I, what I can say, I can acknowledge that this has been a topic of discussion with the Taliban," he said during his briefing Monday.
Price said that in addition to talks with the Taliban, the U.S. has talked about who will take over the airport with allies -- and all have shared interests.
"There is actually agreement between and among all these actors, of course between the United States and our partners and allies, but also with the Taliban, that all of our interests would be served with a functioning airport," he said.
|
The fact there was barely any form of contingency is just.. mindblowing.
|
I think this is going to come up when vax requirements for work end up making their way up to the supreme court:
“Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/493/reynolds-v-united-states
Also would like to hear Farvacola's view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
