Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Afghanistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Faber View Post

    Technically, no peace treaty was ever signed with North Korea. That will make 71 years this coming June 25.
    No need for a treaty if war was never actually declared I guess

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      No need for a treaty if war was never actually declared I guess
      Yeah, my uncle who served in the Korean War insisted on calling it "the Korean Konflict". He was unhappy that it had all the sights, sounds, smells and sorrows of war, but wasn't actually that.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since youíve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?Ē

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

        I think we all know this ain't happening, sadly. He'll come up with some excuse by sept 11 on why we need to keep troops there.
        Almost guaranteed. The pull-out date is too obviously symbolic and not practical; just for show.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ronson View Post

          Almost guaranteed. The pull-out date is too obviously symbolic and not practical; just for show.
          Only reason I think this has teeth this time is that Biden gets no political benefit from it. He's not a good guy, is as much an establishment toady and a warmonger as they come, so we know he's not doing this out of any sort of anti-war principle. If he had said this during the elections, that would be different. I really think we're gearing up towards a major conflict in the very near future.
          "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by seanD View Post

            Only reason I think this has teeth this time is that Biden gets no political benefit from it. He's not a good guy, is as much an establishment toady and a warmonger as they come, so we know he's not doing this out of any sort of anti-war principle. If he had said this during the elections, that would be different. I really think we're gearing up towards a major conflict in the very near future.
            Two things. First, I don't believe this has teeth because I don't think he really means it. It is a soundbite to get a little mileage from the anti militarists on the right, at a time when he's yapping about bi-partisanship. He wants their blessing on his infrastructure plan and tax hikes, so this is a symbolic gesture. "Oh yeah, the US is going to pull out the last of our troops on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks." If it happens I will be surprised, but I'm not counting on it.

            https://apnews.com/article/biden-bip...af33f013c9a954

            Secondly, there is a faction here that wants to bloody Putin's nose in Ukraine and show him who's boss in the region and in the world. Sure, aside from ICBMs, Russia is no match for the US. I think this militaristic faction is counting on Putin backing down or taking some lumps in a conventional sense, without it escalating. I hope these people don't get their way. I think it's a stupid idea to (as Rand Paul put it) "tweak the nose" of Russia for no good reason. Troops amassing along the Polish border or the Baltic states, sure, that's cause for alarm and countermeasures. But Ukraine is outside of our sphere of influence and treaties and the United Nations is the one to protest and make threats about it. Not the US.

            I don't see the US getting into a conflict with Iran; Biden wants to make friends with those mullahs. And Kim is too crazy and unpredictable to battle with. China ... eh .... I think Biden and his entourage wants to sidle up to China. For whatever reason, they simply don't see a danger there.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              Two things. First, I don't believe this has teeth because I don't think he really means it. It is a soundbite to get a little mileage from the anti militarists on the right, at a time when he's yapping about bi-partisanship. He wants their blessing on his infrastructure plan and tax hikes, so this is a symbolic gesture. "Oh yeah, the US is going to pull out the last of our troops on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks." If it happens I will be surprised, but I'm not counting on it.

              https://apnews.com/article/biden-bip...af33f013c9a954

              Secondly, there is a faction here that wants to bloody Putin's nose in Ukraine and show him who's boss in the region and in the world. Sure, aside from ICBMs, Russia is no match for the US. I think this militaristic faction is counting on Putin backing down or taking some lumps in a conventional sense, without it escalating. I hope these people don't get their way. I think it's a stupid idea to (as Rand Paul put it) "tweak the nose" of Russia for no good reason. Troops amassing along the Polish border or the Baltic states, sure, that's cause for alarm and countermeasures. But Ukraine is outside of our sphere of influence and treaties and the United Nations is the one to protest and make threats about it. Not the US.

              I don't see the US getting into a conflict with Iran; Biden wants to make friends with those mullahs. And Kim is too crazy and unpredictable to battle with. China ... eh .... I think Biden and his entourage wants to sidle up to China. For whatever reason, they simply don't see a danger there.
              From what I recall, the Reps were never against keeping troops there. There as much military establishment toadies as Biden is, with the exception of maybe Rand Paul who's an outlier. I would think this would hurt his efforts at bipartisanship with the Reps, especially if the Pentagon and intelligence starts crying about it.
              "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                Wonder if intelligence will accuse Biden of ignoring bounties being put on US troops by the Russians in order to stop it. Guess we'll find out just how partisan driven the Pentagon is when it comes to dismantling their voracious appetite for war.
                Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!


                Source: U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops


                t was a blockbuster story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great Game” in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.

                But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had "low to moderate" confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven -- and possibly untrue.

                "The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier," a senior administration official said.

                "This information puts a burden on the Russian government to explain its actions and take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior," the official said, indicating that Biden is unprepared to walk the story back fully.

                Significantly, the Biden team announced a raft of sanctions on Thursday. But those sanctions, targeting Russia’s sovereign debt market, are prompted only by Russia’s interference in the 2020 election and its alleged role in the SolarWinds cyber espionage. (In contrast, Biden administration officials said that their assessment attributing the breach of technology company SolarWinds to hackers from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service was "high confidence.")

                "We have noted our conclusion of the review that we conducted on the bounties issue and we have conveyed through diplomatic, intelligence, and military channels strong, direct messages on this issue, but we are not specifically tying the actions we are taking today to that matter," a senior administration official told reporters in reference to the bounty claims.

                According to the officials on Thursday’s call, the reporting about the alleged "bounties" came from "detainee reporting" -- raising the specter that someone told their U.S.-aligned Afghan jailers what they thought was necessary to get out of a cage. Specifically, the official cited "information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government" as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment.



                Source

                © Copyright Original Source



                [*story continues at hyperlink above*]

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!


                  Source: U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops


                  t was a blockbuster story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great Game” in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.

                  But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had "low to moderate" confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven -- and possibly untrue.

                  "The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier," a senior administration official said.

                  "This information puts a burden on the Russian government to explain its actions and take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior," the official said, indicating that Biden is unprepared to walk the story back fully.

                  Significantly, the Biden team announced a raft of sanctions on Thursday. But those sanctions, targeting Russia’s sovereign debt market, are prompted only by Russia’s interference in the 2020 election and its alleged role in the SolarWinds cyber espionage. (In contrast, Biden administration officials said that their assessment attributing the breach of technology company SolarWinds to hackers from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service was "high confidence.")

                  "We have noted our conclusion of the review that we conducted on the bounties issue and we have conveyed through diplomatic, intelligence, and military channels strong, direct messages on this issue, but we are not specifically tying the actions we are taking today to that matter," a senior administration official told reporters in reference to the bounty claims.

                  According to the officials on Thursday’s call, the reporting about the alleged "bounties" came from "detainee reporting" -- raising the specter that someone told their U.S.-aligned Afghan jailers what they thought was necessary to get out of a cage. Specifically, the official cited "information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government" as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment.



                  Source

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  [*story continues at hyperlink above*]
                  Trump says 'it is time' for US troops to exit Afghanistan, undermining agreement with Taliban

                  Notice the sequence of dates with the NYT story. What a coincidence
                  "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post

                    From what I recall, the Reps were never against keeping troops there. There as much military establishment toadies as Biden is, with the exception of maybe Rand Paul who's an outlier. I would think this would hurt his efforts at bipartisanship with the Reps, especially if the Pentagon and intelligence starts crying about it.
                    Some Democrats are anti-hawks (is that a term?) as well.

                    https://thenewamerican.com/tulsi-gab...r-with-russia/

                    Tulsi Gabbard: Biden Is Moving Us Toward Nuclear War With Russia

                    The Biden administration’s policies could land us in a war with Russia, resulting in “suffering beyond comprehension, hundreds of millions of people dying” and “the end of the world as we know it.”

                    So said former Hawaii Democrat congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard on Monday, April 12, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, warning that a failure to deescalate tensions with Moscow over Ukraine could result in nuclear conflict.

                    What concerns Gabbard was reflected in actions the Biden administration took just today, as it “imposed a broad array of sanctions on Russia to punish it for alleged interference in the 2020 U.S. election, cyber-hacking, bullying Ukraine and other ‘malign’ acts,” reported Reuters.

                    “The measures blacklisted Russian companies, expelled Russian diplomats and placed limits on the Russian sovereign debt market,” the news organ continued.

                    Despite implicitly showing sympathy for Moscow back when it led the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Democrats have in recent years portrayed Russia as the Devil incarnate. This began in earnest when they made the nation part of a narrative they used to attack President Trump. All the while, Democrats have been largely pandering to China — which has an economy eight times the size of Russia’s and is by far our greatest geopolitical threat — partially because many in the establishment make money off Beijing.

                    This bias is imperiling us, too, according to Gabbard. Responding to host Tucker Carlson’s question as to whether the Russia-Ukraine situation is moving toward war and if some of our leaders relish the prospect, the former congresswoman stated:
                    It is moving in a very dangerous direction, and the question for the American people is, “Are we willing to go to war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine? And we need to understand that such a war would come at a cost beyond anything that we can really imagine, because this is not a war that is just, “Okay, this is going to be something that’s happening to someone else somewhere else on the other side of the world.”

                    No, this is something that will directly impact me and you, Tucker, every single one of your viewers and all of our loved ones. This is a war that is not a game; it’s a war in which there are no winners because you’ve got, you know, thousands of nuclear weapons that the United States has aimed towards Russia; Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons aimed towards us that could hit any town or city in America in less than 30 minutes and exact a cost upon every one of us that would result in excruciating death and suffering beyond comprehension; hundreds of millions of people dying and suffering seeing their flesh being burned from their bones.

                    (emphasis mine)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                      Some Democrats are anti-hawks (is that a term?) as well.

                      https://thenewamerican.com/tulsi-gab...r-with-russia/

                      Tulsi Gabbard: Biden Is Moving Us Toward Nuclear War With Russia

                      The Biden administration’s policies could land us in a war with Russia, resulting in “suffering beyond comprehension, hundreds of millions of people dying” and “the end of the world as we know it.”

                      So said former Hawaii Democrat congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard on Monday, April 12, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, warning that a failure to deescalate tensions with Moscow over Ukraine could result in nuclear conflict.

                      What concerns Gabbard was reflected in actions the Biden administration took just today, as it “imposed a broad array of sanctions on Russia to punish it for alleged interference in the 2020 U.S. election, cyber-hacking, bullying Ukraine and other ‘malign’ acts,” reported Reuters.

                      “The measures blacklisted Russian companies, expelled Russian diplomats and placed limits on the Russian sovereign debt market,” the news organ continued.

                      Despite implicitly showing sympathy for Moscow back when it led the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Democrats have in recent years portrayed Russia as the Devil incarnate. This began in earnest when they made the nation part of a narrative they used to attack President Trump. All the while, Democrats have been largely pandering to China — which has an economy eight times the size of Russia’s and is by far our greatest geopolitical threat — partially because many in the establishment make money off Beijing.

                      This bias is imperiling us, too, according to Gabbard. Responding to host Tucker Carlson’s question as to whether the Russia-Ukraine situation is moving toward war and if some of our leaders relish the prospect, the former congresswoman stated:
                      It is moving in a very dangerous direction, and the question for the American people is, “Are we willing to go to war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine? And we need to understand that such a war would come at a cost beyond anything that we can really imagine, because this is not a war that is just, “Okay, this is going to be something that’s happening to someone else somewhere else on the other side of the world.”

                      No, this is something that will directly impact me and you, Tucker, every single one of your viewers and all of our loved ones. This is a war that is not a game; it’s a war in which there are no winners because you’ve got, you know, thousands of nuclear weapons that the United States has aimed towards Russia; Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons aimed towards us that could hit any town or city in America in less than 30 minutes and exact a cost upon every one of us that would result in excruciating death and suffering beyond comprehension; hundreds of millions of people dying and suffering seeing their flesh being burned from their bones.

                      (emphasis mine)
                      Whether Gabbard is right or wrong, imagine how different the coverage would be if a Republican had said this about Trump.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Whether Gabbard is right or wrong, imagine how different the coverage would be if a Republican had said this about Trump.
                        I think Gabbard is painting a worst-case scenario by saying it's "only a matter of when" nuclear missiles start flying if we end up in a war with Russia. We might have a skirmish or two with Russia and it fizzles out. Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on whether or not cooler heads take over.

                        But her question "is it worth it?" is right on the button. Are we willing to risk a nuclear conflict with Russia over Ukraine? Seriously, is Ukraine worth that much to the US? We know for certain that it is worth a lot more to Russia - and I suspect they will go to the mat over it. A reverse situation, say US troops massed along the Mexican border to possibly cross it to go after cartels (or something) and Russia started giving us ultimatums about it, and sanctions, and threats. Mexico is in our backyard and means a whole lot more to us than to Russia, and I can't imagine any US president backing down.

                        So would Putin back down over Ukraine?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                          Some Democrats are anti-hawks (is that a term?) as well.

                          https://thenewamerican.com/tulsi-gab...r-with-russia/

                          Tulsi Gabbard: Biden Is Moving Us Toward Nuclear War With Russia

                          The Biden administration’s policies could land us in a war with Russia, resulting in “suffering beyond comprehension, hundreds of millions of people dying” and “the end of the world as we know it.”

                          So said former Hawaii Democrat congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard on Monday, April 12, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, warning that a failure to deescalate tensions with Moscow over Ukraine could result in nuclear conflict.

                          What concerns Gabbard was reflected in actions the Biden administration took just today, as it “imposed a broad array of sanctions on Russia to punish it for alleged interference in the 2020 U.S. election, cyber-hacking, bullying Ukraine and other ‘malign’ acts,” reported Reuters.

                          “The measures blacklisted Russian companies, expelled Russian diplomats and placed limits on the Russian sovereign debt market,” the news organ continued.

                          Despite implicitly showing sympathy for Moscow back when it led the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Democrats have in recent years portrayed Russia as the Devil incarnate. This began in earnest when they made the nation part of a narrative they used to attack President Trump. All the while, Democrats have been largely pandering to China — which has an economy eight times the size of Russia’s and is by far our greatest geopolitical threat — partially because many in the establishment make money off Beijing.

                          This bias is imperiling us, too, according to Gabbard. Responding to host Tucker Carlson’s question as to whether the Russia-Ukraine situation is moving toward war and if some of our leaders relish the prospect, the former congresswoman stated:
                          It is moving in a very dangerous direction, and the question for the American people is, “Are we willing to go to war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine? And we need to understand that such a war would come at a cost beyond anything that we can really imagine, because this is not a war that is just, “Okay, this is going to be something that’s happening to someone else somewhere else on the other side of the world.”

                          No, this is something that will directly impact me and you, Tucker, every single one of your viewers and all of our loved ones. This is a war that is not a game; it’s a war in which there are no winners because you’ve got, you know, thousands of nuclear weapons that the United States has aimed towards Russia; Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons aimed towards us that could hit any town or city in America in less than 30 minutes and exact a cost upon every one of us that would result in excruciating death and suffering beyond comprehension; hundreds of millions of people dying and suffering seeing their flesh being burned from their bones.




                          (emphasis mine)
                          Both her and Paul are outliers, and they're consistent in their principle. Dems are only anti-war when it isn't their side waging it (most times at least, and this is definitely historically inconsistent). Reps are always pro-war to matter which side is waging it.
                          "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by seanD View Post

                            Both her and Paul are outliers, and they're consistent in their principle. Dems are only anti-war when it isn't their side waging it (most times at least, and this is definitely historically inconsistent). Reps are always pro-war to matter which side is waging it.
                            I am a Libertarian, but many in my family are Reps and Dems. None of them want a war with Russia over Ukraine, and I think that will be the outcome if Biden pushes it too far.

                            IMO, the US should forget Ukraine. It is of no strategic or resource significance to the US. It's like China invading Tibet or India invading Bangla Desh. They aren't important to us. They are regional issues so the UN can spearhead countermeasures.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              Wonder if intelligence will accuse Biden of ignoring bounties being put on US troops by the Russians in order to stop it. Guess we'll find out just how partisan driven the Pentagon is when it comes to dismantling their voracious appetite for war.
                              Oh yeah, by the way, those 'bounties'? Looks like they likely never even existed.

                              https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-int...merican-troops

                              https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...admin-n1264215

                              https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...tan-after-all/

                              https://nypost.com/2021/04/15/russia...to-hurt-trump/

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It never was anything more than a rumor in the first place, but now that Trump is gone it is safe to admit it.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seanD, Yesterday, 11:57 PM
                                0 responses
                                6 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 06:02 PM
                                2 responses
                                22 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 01:18 PM
                                0 responses
                                19 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by rogue06, 06-15-2021, 08:01 AM
                                17 responses
                                161 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Sparko, 06-14-2021, 10:51 AM
                                7 responses
                                54 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Working...
                                X