| DISCUSSION | ||||||||||||||||||||
| [View Previous Page] | ||||||||||||||||||||
The US giving money and weapons to the Afghan Mujahideen rebelling against the Soviet influence in the region due to the hawkish nature of Ronald Regean. This is not a theory, it is a fact. Jihad as a concept has existed for centuries. The idea that somehow the United States is responsible for it strains credulity and lacks any sort of nuance or sense of history. Our presence in the region is only legitimizing their efforts
2,500 military members in an advisory capacity does much more good than harm, particularly for the Afghan people. Which is why study after study shows an overwhelming majority of Afghans support our presence. Worst of all, the betrayal to the women of Afghanistan is pronounced and the effects will be immediate. This statement is simply "Blame America" propaganda, not consistent with any facts. How do you do that outside of a full on 2nd invasion?
We have 2,500 advisory military members and they have managed to do it. A residual force is a low-cost, highly effective tool in achieving this goal. How many 9/11-style attacks on America have been perpetuated out of Afghanistan since 2001? The answer is zero. By a unconditional withdrawal, the congressional Afghanistan study group estimated that we will be at risk of another attack in 18 months-3 years. 2. If 20 years is too short of a time to do it, when can we say "Mission accomplished". When I'm 30? 50? 70?
0.004% of the Federal Budget to ensure that a major hub of the Middle East doesn't become a safe haven for the foreseeable future is a reasonable investment of resources. Certainly, presidents should re-evaluate if conditions on the ground change. But, an unconditional withdrawal when the Taliban is ready to pounce is woefully irresponsible. We maintain multitudes more soldiers in Japan and Germany as residual troops from World War II. A similar, but even smaller, investment in Afghanistan is smart and strategically advantageous. | ||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Jihad as a concept has existed for centuries. The idea that somehow the United States is responsible for it strains credulity and lacks any sort of nuance or sense of history.
Nice dodge of me mentioning the literal fact THESE specific groups we were sent to fight were funded by the US. Also nice dodge about hiding under the vague blanket of "We were sent there to stop terrorism" and keep ignoring the fact we went there "to fight Al Qaeda" specifically. 2,500 military members in an advisory capacity does much more good than harm, particularly for the Afghan people. Which is why study after study shows an overwhelming majority of Afghans support our presence. Worst of all, the betrayal to the women of Afghanistan is pronounced and the effects will be immediate. This statement is simply "Blame America" propaganda, not consistent with any facts.
Well if you ignore literally any sort of facts then sure it isn't consistent at all. That is 100% how Terrorist groups in the Mid East like Hezbollah and Hamas get people to adhere to their causes. With an easy insertion of religious elements by claiming that the people bombing their hospitals are the spawns of the devil. Same situation can be said for White Nationalist terrorism or people joining a gang, a bad situation will make them go in a bad direction. We have 2,500 advisory military members and they have managed to do it. A residual force is a low-cost, highly effective tool in achieving this goal. How many 9/11-style attacks on America have been perpetuated out of Afghanistan since 2001? The answer is zero. By a unconditional withdrawal, the congressional Afghanistan study group estimated that we will be at risk of another attack in 18 months-3 years.
Yes "they have been able to do it". Like the TSA has been able to stop all those planes flying into towers by touching ur dick in the airport line. Do you have any evidence to indicate they stopped a plan from being perpetuated, or is it just a :Hey if they're busy killin our boys there they won't have time to kill us here. BETTER THEM THAN US" 0.004% of the Federal Budget to ensure that a major hub of the Middle East doesn't become a safe haven for the foreseeable future is a reasonable investment of resources. Certainly, presidents should re-evaluate if conditions on the ground change. But, an unconditional withdrawal when the Taliban is ready to pounce is woefully irresponsible.
Nobody said unconditional withdrawl, I assume that is why Joe Biden delayed it (Aside form the brownie points speech he will give), so he can negotiate a situation that is to his liking. Also you love to use a very small number to try and justify it, meanwhile a 2011 study showed that the US lost a total of $31-$60 billion to waste and in 2019 the Afghanistan papers showed that 40% of the money we spent during the Afghanistan War ended up in the pockets of corrupt officials, warlords, criminals and insurgents. We maintain multitudes more soldiers in Japan and Germany as residual troops from World War II. A similar, but even smaller, investment in Afghanistan is smart and strategically advantageous.
Thats an even bigger waste of money | |||||||||||||||||||
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
WSNJ: Our presence in the middle east has not made it a safer place.
Conclusory statements that blame America and are not substantiated by facts are not a workable foreign policy. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |
Kyle: Conclusory statements that blame America and are not substantiated by facts are not a workable foreign policy.
Forever wars on the otherhand, totally workable. It worked so well when it gives Terrorist Groups a very strong propaganda cmapaign | |||||||||||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||||||||||||
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
 |
And obviously Biden is right to complete that good work. Other opinions are lame. | |||||||||||||||||||
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |
[Link] | |||||||||||||||||||
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |
She's trying to paint herself as some big truth teller even saying she is fearful for her life in the US basically trying to pretend she is Snowden apparently | |||||||||||||||||||
Monmouth poll:
Do you approve or disapprove of how Joe Biden has handled the following policy areas? Jobs and unemployment - Approve: 47%, Disapprove: 48% [Link] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||||||||||||
LOL! | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |
The Fixer: His party member wanted government shutdown so badly that he had pull a fire alarm.
| |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |
Which is nothing new for American Politics | |||||||||||||||||||
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
He doesn't have the power to do this. He could release his delegates and suggest that they go to someone else, but Kamala still has the edge in this case. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| [View Next Page] | ||||||||||||||||||||