Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Two new VI voting polls out today adding to the confusion – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,032
    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    It's sending a clear signal that he's had enough of Afghanistan.

    The rest is you projecting.
    Not really.

    And let’s be honest if this was Trump who was President while this was happening, you’d be telling us how awful, senile, terrible he is and not asking us to wait for the long term outcome.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,616
    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before, and the vast majority of Chinese troops would need to come by sea. If the Taiwanese have a decent airforce, some anti-ship missiles, and drones (all of which they have right now), then the Chinese would take horrendous losses. And once the Taiwanese complete their production of eight nuclear powered attack subs, in 2026/7, it gets even harder.

    Ultimately, I think there are only two ways they could really be successful:

    (1) Nuke Taiwan, and invade in the aftermath. The problem with this strategy is that it requires Taiwan to not have nukes themselves. It's also tough to claim it's just a rebellious province whose people really want to be reunited with the mainland (which is what Chinese propaganda says) and then drop a nuclear bomb on them.

    (2) Blockade. If I wanted to force reunification, this would be my strategy. Blockade Taiwan. Only allowing Chinese ships through. Rely on the fact that Taiwan won't actually sink Chinese naval vessels. But even that's tough. It involves the entire Chinese navy being used on Taiwan. And it what if the Taiwanese think "fuck it" and start sinking your ships. You then have to nuke (see above) and invade, and that's going to involve pretty horrendous losses.

    Now, China is a superpower. And they have lots of people and money. If they made it their sole goal and didn't care about losses, then obviously they could succeed in the end. (Assuming, of course, that Taiwan doesn't have nukes.) But even autocrats want to avoid overseeing massive losses of men and materiel. #
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,193
    edited August 2021
    When did Trump ever play the strong man (excpet against immigrants) ?

    He was perpetually a weakling against other world leaders. He looked like a little boy around Putin, he did what the North Koreans asked him to.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,904
    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    Indeed. They could have drawn two names at random like ancient Athens and not have done worse.
    Remarkably I'd put money on Trump v Biden 2 in three and a bit years.
    I'm the opposite. I think neither.
    There's a fun betting market to be had on 'Number of Biden/Trump on the 2024 tickets'. Options are 0, 1, 2, and More than 2 (if you think Trump will run with another Trump as VP).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    edited August 2021

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,218
    Sean_F said:

    How did the USA get into the position of having a choice between a psychopathic man-child and a senile coward as President.

    A coward? Don't see that at all. That's an odd comment.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,140
    edited August 2021
    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy
    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Yes, personally, as an English-speaking Briton, I would really rather like America to play a prominent role in global affairs, perhaps intervening when things fuck up, in a menacing way, abroad

    For a few more years, America will be the biggest economy on the planet, for some years after that, America will have supremacy still, in military terms. For many many years, the West, cumulatively, will be the biggest hard and soft power on earth. We have precious power now, we need to use it, to serve our cause of freedom and free speech

    A world ruled by China, Russia and assorted fucked-up countries like Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico is not a world I welcome

    Historically, we are in about 350AD and we are looking at the end of the Roman Empire but there is still a chance to save it from the barbarians. What do you choose?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,032
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before, and the vast majority of Chinese troops would need to come by sea. If the Taiwanese have a decent airforce, some anti-ship missiles, and drones (all of which they have right now), then the Chinese would take horrendous losses. And once the Taiwanese complete their production of eight nuclear powered attack subs, in 2026/7, it gets even harder.

    Ultimately, I think there are only two ways they could really be successful:

    (1) Nuke Taiwan, and invade in the aftermath. The problem with this strategy is that it requires Taiwan to not have nukes themselves. It's also tough to claim it's just a rebellious province whose people really want to be reunited with the mainland (which is what Chinese propaganda says) and then drop a nuclear bomb on them.

    (2) Blockade. If I wanted to force reunification, this would be my strategy. Blockade Taiwan. Only allowing Chinese ships through. Rely on the fact that Taiwan won't actually sink Chinese naval vessels. But even that's tough. It involves the entire Chinese navy being used on Taiwan. And it what if the Taiwanese think "fuck it" and start sinking your ships. You then have to nuke (see above) and invade, and that's going to involve pretty horrendous losses.

    Now, China is a superpower. And they have lots of people and money. If they made it their sole goal and didn't care about losses, then obviously they could succeed in the end. (Assuming, of course, that Taiwan doesn't have nukes.) But even autocrats want to avoid overseeing massive losses of men and materiel. #
    Yes, from a military standpoint, it’s hard. And, rationally, that all makes sense.

    But let’s say you are Taiwan. You have seen how the US has caved in and the Chinese are threatening one or two strategic nukes and / or to initiate a conflict and you don’t have nukes. What do you do then?

    Answer: you may decide it is best to be an effective outpost of China.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,616
    Quincel said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    Indeed. They could have drawn two names at random like ancient Athens and not have done worse.
    Remarkably I'd put money on Trump v Biden 2 in three and a bit years.
    I'm the opposite. I think neither.
    There's a fun betting market to be had on 'Number of Biden/Trump on the 2024 tickets'. Options are 0, 1, 2, and More than 2 (if you think Trump will run with another Trump as VP).
    Oh, I like that.

    Can someone push Betfair to run with that?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,717
    edited August 2021
    Alistair said:

    When did Trump ever play the strong man (excpet against immigrants) ?

    He was perpetually a weakling against other world leaders. He looked like a little boy around Putin, he did what the North Koreans asked him to.

    Taking out Qasem Soleimani and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    I presume because they didn't tell him he was the bestest.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,411
    edited August 2021
    Alistair said:

    When did Trump ever play the strong man (excpet against immigrants) ?

    He was perpetually a weakling against other world leaders. He looked like a little boy around Putin, he did what the North Koreans asked him to.

    Yes, as was famously noted, both in his body language, and in the substance of his policy interactions around Putin, he was very meek. Putin certainly did not respect him.

    Xi may have been a slightly different case, which also may be why this administration has been so keen not only to continue, but actually to make even more assertive, Trump's oppositionalism on that front , since they got in.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,218
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Still, that's cheered me up

    Things could be worse for the UK. We could be led by Joe Biden

    Say what you like about Boris, he is a strong leader on the world stage, almost as much as Thatcher and Blair were, unlike Biden.
    Oh FFS. This is not the time for satire.

    I can't stand it no more. I'm switching to Spotify.
  • Alistair said:

    When did Trump ever play the strong man (excpet against immigrants) ?

    He was perpetually a weakling against other world leaders. He looked like a little boy around Putin, he did what the North Koreans asked him to.

    Taking out Qasem Soleimani and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
    "Who are they?"
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,534
    Maybe they could engineer a senile man-child v psychopathic coward next time?
    Would that be better?
  • I did report earlier on a coastguard helicopter rescue in front of our balcony this evening with an air ambulance landing on the golf course

    Apparently a 60 year lady had fallen from top to bottom of the concrete steps leading from the promenade onto the beach, and has been flown to Stoke Mandeville Hospital with head and chest injuries

    It sounds very serious and I hope she makes a full recovery
  • Johnson can't string a sentence together and has terrible ratings in literally every country.

    Thatcher was a titan as was Blair. Johnson is nothing close. Even May was better
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy
    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Yes, personally, as an English-speaking Briton, I would really rather like America to play a prominent role in global affairs, perhaps intervening when things fuck up, in a menacing way, abroad

    For a few more years, America will be the biggest economy on the planet, for some years after that, America will have supremacy still, in military terms. For many many years, the West, cumulatively, will be the biggest hard and soft power on earth. We have precious power now, we need to use it, to serve our cause of freedom and free speech

    A world ruled by China, Russia and assorted fucked-up countries like Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico is not a world In welcome

    Historically, we are in about 350AD and we are looking at the end of the Roman Empire but there is still a chance to save it from the barbarians. What do you choose?
    Well I'm obviously interested to see how big a fan of US global hegemonic ambitions everyone on here is. Just a bit of a surprise given the shellacking a large proportion of the country received from the very same people on here when they had the temerity to vote in The Donald recently.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,032
    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
  • dixiedean said:

    Maybe they could engineer a senile man-child v psychopathic coward next time?
    Would that be better?

    That might be Biden vs Trump again.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,833
    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,702
    edited August 2021

    Johnson can't string a sentence together and has terrible ratings in literally every country.

    Thatcher was a titan as was Blair. Johnson is nothing close. Even May was better

    Xi has the worst popularity ratings of all in that Guardian poll today of European nations and the US, does not mean he is not powerful.

    The strongest G7 leaders once Merkel leaves next month will be Macron then Boris
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,702
    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before, and the vast majority of Chinese troops would need to come by sea. If the Taiwanese have a decent airforce, some anti-ship missiles, and drones (all of which they have right now), then the Chinese would take horrendous losses. And once the Taiwanese complete their production of eight nuclear powered attack subs, in 2026/7, it gets even harder.

    Ultimately, I think there are only two ways they could really be successful:

    (1) Nuke Taiwan, and invade in the aftermath. The problem with this strategy is that it requires Taiwan to not have nukes themselves. It's also tough to claim it's just a rebellious province whose people really want to be reunited with the mainland (which is what Chinese propaganda says) and then drop a nuclear bomb on them.

    (2) Blockade. If I wanted to force reunification, this would be my strategy. Blockade Taiwan. Only allowing Chinese ships through. Rely on the fact that Taiwan won't actually sink Chinese naval vessels. But even that's tough. It involves the entire Chinese navy being used on Taiwan. And it what if the Taiwanese think "fuck it" and start sinking your ships. You then have to nuke (see above) and invade, and that's going to involve pretty horrendous losses.

    Now, China is a superpower. And they have lots of people and money. If they made it their sole goal and didn't care about losses, then obviously they could succeed in the end. (Assuming, of course, that Taiwan doesn't have nukes.) But even autocrats want to avoid overseeing massive losses of men and materiel. #
    Yes, from a military standpoint, it’s hard. And, rationally, that all makes sense.

    But let’s say you are Taiwan. You have seen how the US has caved in and the Chinese are threatening one or two strategic nukes and / or to initiate a conflict and you don’t have nukes. What do you do then?

    Answer: you may decide it is best to be an effective outpost of China.
    Or if you are Taiwan you get nukes yourself
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
  • kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Still, that's cheered me up

    Things could be worse for the UK. We could be led by Joe Biden

    Say what you like about Boris, he is a strong leader on the world stage, almost as much as Thatcher and Blair were, unlike Biden.
    Oh FFS. This is not the time for satire.

    I can't stand it no more. I'm switching to Spotify.
    He believes it though I do not
  • I worry with Biden, is not only the Taliban and ISIS-K in Afghanistan and now they have all that lovely US kit, but it will embolden all the ISIS and other Islamist groups in African that are already on the rise.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,616
    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before, and the vast majority of Chinese troops would need to come by sea. If the Taiwanese have a decent airforce, some anti-ship missiles, and drones (all of which they have right now), then the Chinese would take horrendous losses. And once the Taiwanese complete their production of eight nuclear powered attack subs, in 2026/7, it gets even harder.

    Ultimately, I think there are only two ways they could really be successful:

    (1) Nuke Taiwan, and invade in the aftermath. The problem with this strategy is that it requires Taiwan to not have nukes themselves. It's also tough to claim it's just a rebellious province whose people really want to be reunited with the mainland (which is what Chinese propaganda says) and then drop a nuclear bomb on them.

    (2) Blockade. If I wanted to force reunification, this would be my strategy. Blockade Taiwan. Only allowing Chinese ships through. Rely on the fact that Taiwan won't actually sink Chinese naval vessels. But even that's tough. It involves the entire Chinese navy being used on Taiwan. And it what if the Taiwanese think "fuck it" and start sinking your ships. You then have to nuke (see above) and invade, and that's going to involve pretty horrendous losses.

    Now, China is a superpower. And they have lots of people and money. If they made it their sole goal and didn't care about losses, then obviously they could succeed in the end. (Assuming, of course, that Taiwan doesn't have nukes.) But even autocrats want to avoid overseeing massive losses of men and materiel. #
    Yes, from a military standpoint, it’s hard. And, rationally, that all makes sense.

    But let’s say you are Taiwan. You have seen how the US has caved in and the Chinese are threatening one or two strategic nukes and / or to initiate a conflict and you don’t have nukes. What do you do then?

    Answer: you may decide it is best to be an effective outpost of China.
    Interestingly, before the current Chinese leadership, Taiwan and China were heading towards rapprochement, and it seemed entirely possible they would join the PRC under the "one country, x systems" model of Hong Kong.

    So, you saw the laws prohibiting ownership of Taiwanese companies by PRC companies repealed (and one of the big telecoms companies got bought), and direct flight started up between the two.

    It looked like China was following a fifty year strategy to bring Taiwan back into the fold.

    But the current Beijing leadership - and their behaviour in HK - has sparked a real change in Taiwan. Their nuclear submarine program will be second only behind the Americans. They're dramatically upping spending on weapons. And the politics in Taiwan are heading towards an outright declaration that they are their own separate country, rather than the "well, we're all friends, let's not rock the boat".

    Taiwan also just voted in a referendum to maintain their nuclear power plants - which are all "research" plants, well suited to harvest plutonium, which means they aren't a million miles away from getting nuclear weapons.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    edited August 2021
    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,861
    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before, and the vast majority of Chinese troops would need to come by sea. If the Taiwanese have a decent airforce, some anti-ship missiles, and drones (all of which they have right now), then the Chinese would take horrendous losses. And once the Taiwanese complete their production of eight nuclear powered attack subs, in 2026/7, it gets even harder.

    Ultimately, I think there are only two ways they could really be successful:

    (1) Nuke Taiwan, and invade in the aftermath. The problem with this strategy is that it requires Taiwan to not have nukes themselves. It's also tough to claim it's just a rebellious province whose people really want to be reunited with the mainland (which is what Chinese propaganda says) and then drop a nuclear bomb on them.

    (2) Blockade. If I wanted to force reunification, this would be my strategy. Blockade Taiwan. Only allowing Chinese ships through. Rely on the fact that Taiwan won't actually sink Chinese naval vessels. But even that's tough. It involves the entire Chinese navy being used on Taiwan. And it what if the Taiwanese think "fuck it" and start sinking your ships. You then have to nuke (see above) and invade, and that's going to involve pretty horrendous losses.

    Now, China is a superpower. And they have lots of people and money. If they made it their sole goal and didn't care about losses, then obviously they could succeed in the end. (Assuming, of course, that Taiwan doesn't have nukes.) But even autocrats want to avoid overseeing massive losses of men and materiel. #
    Yes, from a military standpoint, it’s hard. And, rationally, that all makes sense.

    But let’s say you are Taiwan. You have seen how the US has caved in and the Chinese are threatening one or two strategic nukes and / or to initiate a conflict and you don’t have nukes. What do you do then?

    Answer: you may decide it is best to be an effective outpost of China.
    Or if you are Taiwan you get nukes yourself
    Neither China nor Taiwan would nuke Taiwan or China. Each considers the others territory and, more crucially, people its own and brothers/sisters (Just with the wrong leadership)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,534

    My final two comments on abortion.

    Firstly, those on the pro-choice side of the debate seem to generally take a different view when that choice is influenced by gender selection.

    Secondly, I think the debate has clearly demonstrated that my views are out of line with lefty opinion. One of those areas where the broad church isn't so broad.

    I left the Labour students 35 years ago because of this very issue. I haven't been in a Party since.
    My opinions on abortion have mellowed a lot since, mind.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,032
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before, and the vast majority of Chinese troops would need to come by sea. If the Taiwanese have a decent airforce, some anti-ship missiles, and drones (all of which they have right now), then the Chinese would take horrendous losses. And once the Taiwanese complete their production of eight nuclear powered attack subs, in 2026/7, it gets even harder.

    Ultimately, I think there are only two ways they could really be successful:

    (1) Nuke Taiwan, and invade in the aftermath. The problem with this strategy is that it requires Taiwan to not have nukes themselves. It's also tough to claim it's just a rebellious province whose people really want to be reunited with the mainland (which is what Chinese propaganda says) and then drop a nuclear bomb on them.

    (2) Blockade. If I wanted to force reunification, this would be my strategy. Blockade Taiwan. Only allowing Chinese ships through. Rely on the fact that Taiwan won't actually sink Chinese naval vessels. But even that's tough. It involves the entire Chinese navy being used on Taiwan. And it what if the Taiwanese think "fuck it" and start sinking your ships. You then have to nuke (see above) and invade, and that's going to involve pretty horrendous losses.

    Now, China is a superpower. And they have lots of people and money. If they made it their sole goal and didn't care about losses, then obviously they could succeed in the end. (Assuming, of course, that Taiwan doesn't have nukes.) But even autocrats want to avoid overseeing massive losses of men and materiel. #
    Yes, from a military standpoint, it’s hard. And, rationally, that all makes sense.

    But let’s say you are Taiwan. You have seen how the US has caved in and the Chinese are threatening one or two strategic nukes and / or to initiate a conflict and you don’t have nukes. What do you do then?

    Answer: you may decide it is best to be an effective outpost of China.
    Interestingly, before the current Chinese leadership, Taiwan and China were heading towards rapprochement, and it seemed entirely possible they would join the PRC under the "one country, x systems" model of Hong Kong.

    So, you saw the laws prohibiting ownership of Taiwanese companies by PRC companies repealed (and one of the big telecoms companies got bought), and direct flight started up between the two.

    It looked like China was following a fifty year strategy to bring Taiwan back into the fold.

    But the current Beijing leadership - and their behaviour in HK - has sparked a real change in Taiwan. Their nuclear submarine program will be second only behind the Americans. They're dramatically upping spending on weapons. And the politics in Taiwan are heading towards an outright declaration that they are their own separate country, rather than the "well, we're all friends, let's not rock the boat".

    Taiwan also just voted in a referendum to maintain their nuclear power plants - which are all "research" plants, well suited to harvest plutonium, which means they aren't a million miles away from getting nuclear weapons.
    I think it’s almost certain the Taiwanese have effective nuclear capabilities in that they can produce one at short notice. I also think the CCP is more interested in survival and a complicated Taiwan-China fight may causes issues on that front.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,497

    Leon said:

    This is a president emblematic of a superpower resigning from global leadership, with a hint of panicked retreat

    My wife and I have just said we cannot remember any US President so publicly and totally humiliated in the eyes of the world

    You missed the storming of the Capital Building then?

    I am not diminishing today's fiasco. But don't forget 5 Americans died at the Capital Building too.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    This was a so called protected evacuation and Biden has failed

    I did not support Irag or Afghanistan and the withdrawal was correct

    Pity Biden got it wrong in such a devastating manner
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    This was a so called protected evacuation and Biden has failed

    I did not support Irag or Afghanistan and the withdrawal was correct

    Pity Biden got it wrong in such a devastating manner
    If you support the withdrawal then you will be aware of the unpredictable nature of such events and realise that a few dozen deaths is neither here nor there in the general scheme of things.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,032
    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,534
    Everyone assuming Taiwan doesn’t have nukes.
    That isn't your average Taiwanese opinion.
  • Leon said:

    This is a president emblematic of a superpower resigning from global leadership, with a hint of panicked retreat

    My wife and I have just said we cannot remember any US President so publicly and totally humiliated in the eyes of the world

    You missed the storming of the Capital Building then?

    I am not diminishing today's fiasco. But don't forget 5 Americans died at the Capital Building too.
    The Capital Buildings was shameful but you cannot compare that with this unfolding disaster at the behest of Biden
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,833
    HYUFD said:

    Johnson can't string a sentence together and has terrible ratings in literally every country.

    Thatcher was a titan as was Blair. Johnson is nothing close. Even May was better

    Xi has the worst popularity ratings of all in that Guardian poll today of European nations and the US, does not mean he is not powerful.

    The strongest G7 leaders once Merkel leaves next month will be Macron then Boris
    Regardless of the exact rankings, it's very much a tallest dwarf competition. Merkel is done, Trudeau is trying to not to get booted out, ditto with Macron. Biden is senile. Suga is fairly invisible given the Olympics, and Johnson is lazy. That only leaves Draghi, PM of a nation that shouldn't even be invited.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,702
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    This was a so called protected evacuation and Biden has failed

    I did not support Irag or Afghanistan and the withdrawal was correct

    Pity Biden got it wrong in such a devastating manner
    If you support the withdrawal then you will be aware of the unpredictable nature of such events and realise that a few dozen deaths is neither here nor there in the general scheme of things.
    I certainly do not support the withdrawal and have said I would have kept troops in Afghanistan indefinitely if needed.

    Bush and Blair removed the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from the country, Biden's withdrawal has handed Kabul back to the Taliban and as today's events showed jihadi terrorism is back in Afghanistan too.

    Biden withdrawing most troops before civilian refugees have been evacuated just compounded the problem
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    This was a so called protected evacuation and Biden has failed

    I did not support Irag or Afghanistan and the withdrawal was correct

    Pity Biden got it wrong in such a devastating manner
    If you support the withdrawal then you will be aware of the unpredictable nature of such events and realise that a few dozen deaths is neither here nor there in the general scheme of things.
    Made far worst by an incompetent US President

    It didn't have to be this way
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    This was a so called protected evacuation and Biden has failed

    I did not support Irag or Afghanistan and the withdrawal was correct

    Pity Biden got it wrong in such a devastating manner
    If you support the withdrawal then you will be aware of the unpredictable nature of such events and realise that a few dozen deaths is neither here nor there in the general scheme of things.
    I certainly do not support the withdrawal and have said I would have kept troops in Afghanistan indefinitely if needed.

    Bush and Blair removed the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from the country, Biden's withdrawal has handed Kabul back to the Taliban and as today's events showed jihadi terrorism is back in Afghanistan too.

    Biden withdrawing most troops before civilian refugees have been evacuated just compounded the problem
    Good to hear. At the rate you're going you will however run out of tanks before too long.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,702
    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    On some things you can eg the Latin Mass, which was normal pre Vatican II, restricted after, allowed again under Pope Benedict, now restricted again under Pope Francis
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,702
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    This was a so called protected evacuation and Biden has failed

    I did not support Irag or Afghanistan and the withdrawal was correct

    Pity Biden got it wrong in such a devastating manner
    If you support the withdrawal then you will be aware of the unpredictable nature of such events and realise that a few dozen deaths is neither here nor there in the general scheme of things.
    I certainly do not support the withdrawal and have said I would have kept troops in Afghanistan indefinitely if needed.

    Bush and Blair removed the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from the country, Biden's withdrawal has handed Kabul back to the Taliban and as today's events showed jihadi terrorism is back in Afghanistan too.

    Biden withdrawing most troops before civilian refugees have been evacuated just compounded the problem
    Good to hear. At the rate you're going you will however run out of tanks before too long.
    I would also significantly increase our defence and armed forces spending
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,140
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    You are tediously drunk. And it takes one to know one, TBH
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    On some things you can eg the Latin Mass, which was normal pre Vatican II, restricted after, allowed again under Pope Benedict, now restricted again under Pope Francis
    Sounds like it is the Pope doing the picking and choosing. Not you.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,833
    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,032
    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    Actually, it’s people trying to be “logical” or “rational” that has fucked things up so much. There is a reason why pragmatism is so often the better choice.

    As for the Catholic Church, it’s far more forgiving than you think. Which, for example, is why Biden hasn’t been kicked out despite being very pro-abortion (while claiming he is a conscientious Catholic)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,534

    Leon said:

    This is a president emblematic of a superpower resigning from global leadership, with a hint of panicked retreat

    My wife and I have just said we cannot remember any US President so publicly and totally humiliated in the eyes of the world

    You missed the storming of the Capital Building then?

    I am not diminishing today's fiasco. But don't forget 5 Americans died at the Capital Building too.
    The Capital Buildings was shameful but you cannot compare that with this unfolding disaster at the behest of Biden
    You're spot on right. One is a monumental foreign policy disaster.
    The other was a direct attack on the Constitution of a democratic State in the cause of overturning a democratic election result and ushering in an effective dictatorship based around a personality cult of an unstable leader.
    Not comparable at all.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    You are tediously drunk. And it takes one to know one, TBH
    Hmm I have already confessed to PB that I don't drink during the week so not right now. But I am about to go to bed.

    Keep fighting the fight from your armchairs tho.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,534
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before, and the vast majority of Chinese troops would need to come by sea. If the Taiwanese have a decent airforce, some anti-ship missiles, and drones (all of which they have right now), then the Chinese would take horrendous losses. And once the Taiwanese complete their production of eight nuclear powered attack subs, in 2026/7, it gets even harder.

    Ultimately, I think there are only two ways they could really be successful:

    (1) Nuke Taiwan, and invade in the aftermath. The problem with this strategy is that it requires Taiwan to not have nukes themselves. It's also tough to claim it's just a rebellious province whose people really want to be reunited with the mainland (which is what Chinese propaganda says) and then drop a nuclear bomb on them.

    (2) Blockade. If I wanted to force reunification, this would be my strategy. Blockade Taiwan. Only allowing Chinese ships through. Rely on the fact that Taiwan won't actually sink Chinese naval vessels. But even that's tough. It involves the entire Chinese navy being used on Taiwan. And it what if the Taiwanese think "fuck it" and start sinking your ships. You then have to nuke (see above) and invade, and that's going to involve pretty horrendous losses.

    Now, China is a superpower. And they have lots of people and money. If they made it their sole goal and didn't care about losses, then obviously they could succeed in the end. (Assuming, of course, that Taiwan doesn't have nukes.) But even autocrats want to avoid overseeing massive losses of men and materiel. #
    Yes, from a military standpoint, it’s hard. And, rationally, that all makes sense.

    But let’s say you are Taiwan. You have seen how the US has caved in and the Chinese are threatening one or two strategic nukes and / or to initiate a conflict and you don’t have nukes. What do you do then?

    Answer: you may decide it is best to be an effective outpost of China.
    Or if you are Taiwan you get nukes yourself
    Neither China nor Taiwan would nuke Taiwan or China. Each considers the others territory and, more crucially, people its own and brothers/sisters (Just with the wrong leadership)
    That's the official line anyway. Amongst the younger generation, the more they see of the PRC, the less they viscerally feel that.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
    I mean people generally join the army to fight if necessary for their country. Not to ensure schools are full or infant mortality is reduced.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,568
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    Actually, it’s people trying to be “logical” or “rational” that has fucked things up so much. There is a reason why pragmatism is so often the better choice.

    As for the Catholic Church, it’s far more forgiving than you think. Which, for example, is why Biden hasn’t been kicked out despite being very pro-abortion (while claiming he is a conscientious Catholic)
    A bit like all those right wing Republican Catholics supporting a serial adulterer who has never asked forgiveness in his life.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    Actually, it’s people trying to be “logical” or “rational” that has fucked things up so much. There is a reason why pragmatism is so often the better choice.

    As for the Catholic Church, it’s far more forgiving than you think. Which, for example, is why Biden hasn’t been kicked out despite being very pro-abortion (while claiming he is a conscientious Catholic)
    Interesting to hear. And I appreciate the explanation.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,616
    edited August 2021
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    Actually, it’s people trying to be “logical” or “rational” that has fucked things up so much. There is a reason why pragmatism is so often the better choice.

    As for the Catholic Church, it’s far more forgiving than you think. Which, for example, is why Biden hasn’t been kicked out despite being very pro-abortion (while claiming he is a conscientious Catholic)
    What pro-abortion things has Biden done?

    As far as I'm aware abortion (pre Roe vs Wade) was very much states rights issue, with some states making it legal and others not. (For the record, I think laws should be made by elected representatives and not by courts, and Roe v Wade is a travesty to democracy.)

    The only vote that I can see that made it to the Senate during his time in that body was a 1995 bill that banned partial birth abortions, and which he supported.

    So, I'm struggling to see him having actually done anything pro-abortion.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,032
    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    Actually, it’s people trying to be “logical” or “rational” that has fucked things up so much. There is a reason why pragmatism is so often the better choice.

    As for the Catholic Church, it’s far more forgiving than you think. Which, for example, is why Biden hasn’t been kicked out despite being very pro-abortion (while claiming he is a conscientious Catholic)
    Interesting to hear. And I appreciate the explanation.
    Not at all. You have made me think and explain, which is good
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,032
    Aslan said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    Actually, it’s people trying to be “logical” or “rational” that has fucked things up so much. There is a reason why pragmatism is so often the better choice.

    As for the Catholic Church, it’s far more forgiving than you think. Which, for example, is why Biden hasn’t been kicked out despite being very pro-abortion (while claiming he is a conscientious Catholic)
    A bit like all those right wing Republican Catholics supporting a serial adulterer who has never asked forgiveness in his life.
    Indeed or like all the Democrat / left wing feminists who make so much noise about the evil patriarchy and the Handmaiden’s Tale but yet have been so extremely quiet about the Taliban taking over in Afghanistan and what it means for women’s rights.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,833
    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
    I mean people generally join the army to fight if necessary for their country. Not to ensure schools are full or infant mortality is reduced.
    And if a country agrees that fighting for human rights is part of their nation's objectives?

    Out of interest, would you happily sacrifice the 1,000,000 infants saved, the millions of women educated, and the 40m people who had their human rights supported for a decade, for just 3,500 western lives? If so it's a pretty damning inditement of the value of a western life verses the value of a non-western life to you.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,568

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    This was a so called protected evacuation and Biden has failed

    I did not support Irag or Afghanistan and the withdrawal was correct

    Pity Biden got it wrong in such a devastating manner
    If you support the withdrawal then you will be aware of the unpredictable nature of such events and realise that a few dozen deaths is neither here nor there in the general scheme of things.
    Made far worst by an incompetent US President

    It didn't have to be this way
    Go on then. Inform us how we smoothly hand over to an army and government that gave up and left the country. The curtain was pulled back and the Afghan national army and government were revealed to be a pure facade where billions of dollars disappeared. The choices were to have this now, have this a few years down the road (with more lives and money lost in the meantime) or forever war.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,568
    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
    I mean people generally join the army to fight if necessary for their country. Not to ensure schools are full or infant mortality is reduced.
    And if a country agrees that fighting for human rights is part of their nation's objectives?

    Out of interest, would you happily sacrifice the 1,000,000 infants saved, the millions of women educated, and the 40m people who had their human rights supported for a decade, for just 3,500 western lives? If so it's a pretty damning inditement of the value of a western life verses the value of a non-western life to you.
    So why don't we apply this logic to every other failed state in the world? Permanent American occupation of Syria, Somalia, DR Congo, Yemen, Eritrea, South Sudan?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,032
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    Actually, it’s people trying to be “logical” or “rational” that has fucked things up so much. There is a reason why pragmatism is so often the better choice.

    As for the Catholic Church, it’s far more forgiving than you think. Which, for example, is why Biden hasn’t been kicked out despite being very pro-abortion (while claiming he is a conscientious Catholic)
    What pro-abortion things has Biden done?

    As far as I'm aware abortion (pre Roe vs Wade) was very much states rights issue, with some states making it legal and others not. (For the record, I think laws should be made by elected representatives and not by courts, and Roe v Wade is a travesty to democracy.)

    The only vote that I can see that made it to the Senate during his time in that body was a 1995 bill that banned partial birth abortions, and which he supported.

    So, I'm struggling to see him having actually done anything pro-abortion.
    He’s actively said he supports abortion and has made it clear he wants to make it easier not harder. Plus to go after religious groups that are against it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,956

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    How did the USA get into the position of having a choice between a psychopathic man-child and a senile coward as President.

    "Senile coward" is ruthlessly accurate. Brutal, and true

    It may also be very unfair. Biden has come through hideous tragedies to be where he is, he is obviously a man - or was a man - of gravitas and intelligence

    However, what I see today, in front of me, is what you describe. A "senile coward". This is just so terrible for America. FFS get a president under 60 who is not mad. How hard can it be
    If Trump had given these press conferences over the past week, CNN etc would be calling him senile.

    The other thing that stank of weakness, saying those bad people we will get them, at some point....powers to be feared, they don't talk about doing such things, they do them. Its like parents that talk about punishing their kids if they are naughty again, it never happens.
    The US is perfectly capable of doing an air strike that kills the number 2 of a terrorist organization. (It's always the number 2 who gets it, if a recruiter calls you and offers you that job don't take it even if it has great pay and a medical plan.) They've done loads of these before and they don't need ground troups for it.

    Biden will almost definitely order such a strike at some point during his term, and the media will love him for it.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 637
    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Question for PBers. Do you have an opinion that would embarrass you in front of the mainstream of the political affiliation you identify with?

    Plenty!

    1. Wishing to see the extinction of humankind
    2. Supporting Brexit
    3. Thinking that someone with a cock and balls is a man
    4. Being anti-abortion

    That's enough for now.
    Is anyone actually pro-abortion?

    I would have thought most of its supporters regard its legal status as a necessary evil.
    I'm pro women's right to choose. I don't think anybody suggests abortion should be obligatory.
    Yes, and a harrowing choice it is too in most cases.

    If abortion is forbidden or restricted so much as to be effectively forbidden, you are reducing the status of women in a very fundamental way. They are no longer in charge of their own bodies.

    This issue goes way beyond the woke wars. It's on another level entirely. You CANNOT be on the left and be wanting to ban abortion. Not for me. Not in 2021.
    No. You're totally wrong here

    Ignoring rape, incest etc for a moment, when it comes to sex, women do have charge of their own bodies. Pregnancy is not something which just magically happens to a woman.

    By having sex, you are accepting that there is some risk of pregnancy (and in this day and age there are lots of options for making that risk very small).

    If you aren't happy with this, there is a 100% successful technique for avoiding pregnancy - it's called abstinence. And this is where your autonomy lies. You have a completely free choice as to whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not, and what precautions to take whilst doing so.

    Once you have created a child, it's too late to go back and decide actually you didn't want to run the risk, and having the child killed. That's murder, and it's no more justifiable inside the womb than it is outside.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,861
    dixiedean said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before, and the vast majority of Chinese troops would need to come by sea. If the Taiwanese have a decent airforce, some anti-ship missiles, and drones (all of which they have right now), then the Chinese would take horrendous losses. And once the Taiwanese complete their production of eight nuclear powered attack subs, in 2026/7, it gets even harder.

    Ultimately, I think there are only two ways they could really be successful:

    (1) Nuke Taiwan, and invade in the aftermath. The problem with this strategy is that it requires Taiwan to not have nukes themselves. It's also tough to claim it's just a rebellious province whose people really want to be reunited with the mainland (which is what Chinese propaganda says) and then drop a nuclear bomb on them.

    (2) Blockade. If I wanted to force reunification, this would be my strategy. Blockade Taiwan. Only allowing Chinese ships through. Rely on the fact that Taiwan won't actually sink Chinese naval vessels. But even that's tough. It involves the entire Chinese navy being used on Taiwan. And it what if the Taiwanese think "fuck it" and start sinking your ships. You then have to nuke (see above) and invade, and that's going to involve pretty horrendous losses.

    Now, China is a superpower. And they have lots of people and money. If they made it their sole goal and didn't care about losses, then obviously they could succeed in the end. (Assuming, of course, that Taiwan doesn't have nukes.) But even autocrats want to avoid overseeing massive losses of men and materiel. #
    Yes, from a military standpoint, it’s hard. And, rationally, that all makes sense.

    But let’s say you are Taiwan. You have seen how the US has caved in and the Chinese are threatening one or two strategic nukes and / or to initiate a conflict and you don’t have nukes. What do you do then?

    Answer: you may decide it is best to be an effective outpost of China.
    Or if you are Taiwan you get nukes yourself
    Neither China nor Taiwan would nuke Taiwan or China. Each considers the others territory and, more crucially, people its own and brothers/sisters (Just with the wrong leadership)
    That's the official line anyway. Amongst the younger generation, the more they see of the PRC, the less they viscerally feel that.
    Well the idea Taiwan can TRULY be in charge of what it says on the tin passport (The Republic of China) is a fantasy given the relative size of the militaries, populations and economic power anyway
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
    I mean people generally join the army to fight if necessary for their country. Not to ensure schools are full or infant mortality is reduced.
    And if a country agrees that fighting for human rights is part of their nation's objectives?

    Out of interest, would you happily sacrifice the 1,000,000 infants saved, the millions of women educated, and the 40m people who had their human rights supported for a decade, for just 3,500 western lives? If so it's a pretty damning inditement of the value of a western life verses the value of a non-western life to you.
    No nation decides that though and if one did I'm guessing that recruitment would decline somewhat.

    And yours is a fantasy question and doesn't merit an answer.

    And super apologies but I'm going to have to go to bed. I will look at your last word tomorrow morning.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,534
    edited August 2021
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    Yes and no.

    Yes, Afghanistan matters little on the world stage and this is not the first US pullout.

    No, in that Biden’s handling of the situation sends a clear signal that the US is giving up leadership.

    As an aside, I’d be slightly more worried about an accidental global conflict now given (1) Xi / Putin will think Biden is weak and (2) Biden and / or his entourage may think they need to act rough to any provocations.
    Do we want the US to be the world's policeman or not? We hammer them if they try to be (and, pace Tony Blair, crucify those that support them) and hammer them if they "give up leadership".
    Short answer is yes. We need someone to wield the hammer. The world is not a nice place and it needs a guardian. As for those who criticise the US acting in such a role, they can Foxtrot Oscar
    At least it's a view. So Iraq good, Afghan good. Vietnam good. Grenada good. Any others on the list? What about Nigeria and Boko Haram. Or where was it that the 7/7 bombers came from again? Leeds wasn't it?
    In order:

    Iraq - bad. No threat from Hussein and getting rid of him in the way they did was disastrous.

    Afghanistan - good but they should have either (a) exited post toppling the Taliban or (b) stayed for decades to complete the nation building

    Vietnam - bad. Total misreading of the situation and strategic implications completely exaggerated.

    Grenada - mixed. Panicked by Cuba angle but not really much lasting impact.

    Nigeria - provide support and logistics training, stay out of direct line. Boko Haram can’t win.

    Leeds - maybe if previous Governments hadn’t turned a blind eye to extremism in certain communities, it wouldn’t have happened.
    Point is, once you cede global policemanship to the US you forfeit the right to criticise.

    It's the US, which will include presidents you don't like and actions you don't agree with.
    No you don’t. I view it in the same way that I view the Catholic Church - just because I think some of their actions are wrong doesn’t mean I do not believe in the institution. You can say that the US is wrong in certain decisions while believing the principle is correct r
    Fine. So you are accepting that the US is acting for the greater good and hence a couple of broken eggs can be forgiven in that context.

    I have no idea how it works in the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose the bits you adhere to or believe or if you do it sounds to me quite illogical.
    Actually, it’s people trying to be “logical” or “rational” that has fucked things up so much. There is a reason why pragmatism is so often the better choice.

    As for the Catholic Church, it’s far more forgiving than you think. Which, for example, is why Biden hasn’t been kicked out despite being very pro-abortion (while claiming he is a conscientious Catholic)
    Are you a Catholic @MrEd ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,616
    theProle said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Question for PBers. Do you have an opinion that would embarrass you in front of the mainstream of the political affiliation you identify with?

    Plenty!

    1. Wishing to see the extinction of humankind
    2. Supporting Brexit
    3. Thinking that someone with a cock and balls is a man
    4. Being anti-abortion

    That's enough for now.
    Is anyone actually pro-abortion?

    I would have thought most of its supporters regard its legal status as a necessary evil.
    I'm pro women's right to choose. I don't think anybody suggests abortion should be obligatory.
    Yes, and a harrowing choice it is too in most cases.

    If abortion is forbidden or restricted so much as to be effectively forbidden, you are reducing the status of women in a very fundamental way. They are no longer in charge of their own bodies.

    This issue goes way beyond the woke wars. It's on another level entirely. You CANNOT be on the left and be wanting to ban abortion. Not for me. Not in 2021.
    No. You're totally wrong here

    Ignoring rape, incest etc for a moment, when it comes to sex, women do have charge of their own bodies. Pregnancy is not something which just magically happens to a woman.

    By having sex, you are accepting that there is some risk of pregnancy (and in this day and age there are lots of options for making that risk very small).

    If you aren't happy with this, there is a 100% successful technique for avoiding pregnancy - it's called abstinence. And this is where your autonomy lies. You have a completely free choice as to whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not, and what precautions to take whilst doing so.

    Once you have created a child, it's too late to go back and decide actually you didn't want to run the risk, and having the child killed. That's murder, and it's no more justifiable inside the womb than it is outside.
    Yet the best way to reduce abortion rates is not criminalization, given juries usually refuse to convict, it is sex education and contraception.

    What's your goal? Feeling good about yourself, or minimizing the number of terminations?
  • Alistair said:

    boulay said:

    I’m presuming that when Biden is asked on Monday about the deaths today of US servicemen and fleeing Afghans he will answer “but that was four, five days ago”......

    Sadly I am expecting him to claim it is a perfect example of why they had to leave - completely ignoring the fact they have lost more American soldiers in a coupe of weeks of withdrawal than they did in the last 20 months of occupation.
    That's because they signed a deal to handover the country to the Taliban in exchange for no more attacks on US soldiers.
    Nope. The attacks were minimal even before the deal.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,140

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    I just cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of an outrage that has killed and maimed many men, women and children who had the right to be protected
    We invaded the country Big G and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We are now leaving and a few more will die.

    All the pearl clutching about the exit phase is bizarre, frankly.
    It is not the leaving that is in dispute, it is the manner and Biden's comprehensive failure of the process
    It's a rounding error Big G. I wouldn't worry about it.
    I worry at the unnecessary deaths of women and children in particular and they are never rounding errors
    Big G take a peek at the casualty toll over the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghan.

    I know you have been in a constant state of devastation over that time at the things being done in your name but now is a curious time to vent it on here.
    This was a so called protected evacuation and Biden has failed

    I did not support Irag or Afghanistan and the withdrawal was correct

    Pity Biden got it wrong in such a devastating manner
    If you support the withdrawal then you will be aware of the unpredictable nature of such events and realise that a few dozen deaths is neither here nor there in the general scheme of things.
    Made far worst by an incompetent US President

    It didn't have to be this way
    It really didn’t.

    The guy I just had dinner with is a green card British citizen, done 20 years in America, lives in and loves Louisiana. Democrat voter. Loathes Trump

    But he absolutely despairs of the ‘useless old’ Biden and abhors Harris. Sees no saviour on the horizon. American politics is in a right old pickle
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,534
    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before, and the vast majority of Chinese troops would need to come by sea. If the Taiwanese have a decent airforce, some anti-ship missiles, and drones (all of which they have right now), then the Chinese would take horrendous losses. And once the Taiwanese complete their production of eight nuclear powered attack subs, in 2026/7, it gets even harder.

    Ultimately, I think there are only two ways they could really be successful:

    (1) Nuke Taiwan, and invade in the aftermath. The problem with this strategy is that it requires Taiwan to not have nukes themselves. It's also tough to claim it's just a rebellious province whose people really want to be reunited with the mainland (which is what Chinese propaganda says) and then drop a nuclear bomb on them.

    (2) Blockade. If I wanted to force reunification, this would be my strategy. Blockade Taiwan. Only allowing Chinese ships through. Rely on the fact that Taiwan won't actually sink Chinese naval vessels. But even that's tough. It involves the entire Chinese navy being used on Taiwan. And it what if the Taiwanese think "fuck it" and start sinking your ships. You then have to nuke (see above) and invade, and that's going to involve pretty horrendous losses.

    Now, China is a superpower. And they have lots of people and money. If they made it their sole goal and didn't care about losses, then obviously they could succeed in the end. (Assuming, of course, that Taiwan doesn't have nukes.) But even autocrats want to avoid overseeing massive losses of men and materiel. #
    Yes, from a military standpoint, it’s hard. And, rationally, that all makes sense.

    But let’s say you are Taiwan. You have seen how the US has caved in and the Chinese are threatening one or two strategic nukes and / or to initiate a conflict and you don’t have nukes. What do you do then?

    Answer: you may decide it is best to be an effective outpost of China.
    Or if you are Taiwan you get nukes yourself
    Neither China nor Taiwan would nuke Taiwan or China. Each considers the others territory and, more crucially, people its own and brothers/sisters (Just with the wrong leadership)
    That's the official line anyway. Amongst the younger generation, the more they see of the PRC, the less they viscerally feel that.
    Well the idea Taiwan can TRULY be in charge of what it says on the tin passport (The Republic of China) is a fantasy given the relative size of the militaries, populations and economic power anyway
    There is summat in that. However, Taiwan has actually been de facto in charge of its domestic affairs for 70 years. It has no foreign autonomy I'll grant you.
    But feelz matter. Just look at Afghanistan.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,833
    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
    I mean people generally join the army to fight if necessary for their country. Not to ensure schools are full or infant mortality is reduced.
    And if a country agrees that fighting for human rights is part of their nation's objectives?

    Out of interest, would you happily sacrifice the 1,000,000 infants saved, the millions of women educated, and the 40m people who had their human rights supported for a decade, for just 3,500 western lives? If so it's a pretty damning inditement of the value of a western life verses the value of a non-western life to you.
    No nation decides that though and if one did I'm guessing that recruitment would decline somewhat.

    And yours is a fantasy question and doesn't merit an answer.

    And super apologies but I'm going to have to go to bed. I will look at your last word tomorrow morning.
    I don't know, I'd argue that supporting western values directly leads to less risk to the motherland.

    The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan saved many lives, supported human rights, and upheld a good level of women's rights. Given the level of western casualties over the past 5 years, I'd not be completely surprised if they were comparable to western casualties over the next 5 following the start of the withdrawal. ~8 weeks ago I was in a 'spoons in the home counties with a couple of Afghan students who were/are studying how to preserve Islamic heritage at Oxford (the majority sipping OJ of course!), and there was a lot of hope for their nation's future. Seeing what has happened since is crushing.

    Ultimately I guess that I'm young and naive enough that I believe that maintaining the occupation could have helped the nation massively. I'm sad that that counterfactual will never be implemented. A liberal occupied country is preferable to an autocratic quasi-democratic (at best) illiberal society IMO.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,568
    theProle said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Question for PBers. Do you have an opinion that would embarrass you in front of the mainstream of the political affiliation you identify with?

    Plenty!

    1. Wishing to see the extinction of humankind
    2. Supporting Brexit
    3. Thinking that someone with a cock and balls is a man
    4. Being anti-abortion

    That's enough for now.
    Is anyone actually pro-abortion?

    I would have thought most of its supporters regard its legal status as a necessary evil.
    I'm pro women's right to choose. I don't think anybody suggests abortion should be obligatory.
    Yes, and a harrowing choice it is too in most cases.

    If abortion is forbidden or restricted so much as to be effectively forbidden, you are reducing the status of women in a very fundamental way. They are no longer in charge of their own bodies.

    This issue goes way beyond the woke wars. It's on another level entirely. You CANNOT be on the left and be wanting to ban abortion. Not for me. Not in 2021.
    No. You're totally wrong here

    Ignoring rape, incest etc for a moment, when it comes to sex, women do have charge of their own bodies. Pregnancy is not something which just magically happens to a woman.

    By having sex, you are accepting that there is some risk of pregnancy (and in this day and age there are lots of options for making that risk very small).

    If you aren't happy with this, there is a 100% successful technique for avoiding pregnancy - it's called abstinence. And this is where your autonomy lies. You have a completely free choice as to whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not, and what precautions to take whilst doing so.

    Once you have created a child, it's too late to go back and decide actually you didn't want to run the risk, and having the child killed. That's murder, and it's no more justifiable inside the womb than it is outside.
    An embryo is not a child and not a sentient life. The idea that destruction of a few cells with no awareness that it exists is equivalent to murder is ridiculous. Unless of course you believe that some magical implantation of a supernatural soul has happened. And of course there is zero evidence for that.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,568
    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
    I mean people generally join the army to fight if necessary for their country. Not to ensure schools are full or infant mortality is reduced.
    And if a country agrees that fighting for human rights is part of their nation's objectives?

    Out of interest, would you happily sacrifice the 1,000,000 infants saved, the millions of women educated, and the 40m people who had their human rights supported for a decade, for just 3,500 western lives? If so it's a pretty damning inditement of the value of a western life verses the value of a non-western life to you.
    No nation decides that though and if one did I'm guessing that recruitment would decline somewhat.

    And yours is a fantasy question and doesn't merit an answer.

    And super apologies but I'm going to have to go to bed. I will look at your last word tomorrow morning.
    I don't know, I'd argue that supporting western values directly leads to less risk to the motherland.

    The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan saved many lives, supported human rights, and upheld a good level of women's rights. Given the level of western casualties over the past 5 years, I'd not be completely surprised if they were comparable to western casualties over the next 5 following the start of the withdrawal. ~8 weeks ago I was in a 'spoons in the home counties with a couple of Afghan students who were/are studying how to preserve Islamic heritage at Oxford (the majority sipping OJ of course!), and there was a lot of hope for their nation's future. Seeing what has happened since is crushing.

    Ultimately I guess that I'm young and naive enough that I believe that maintaining the occupation could have helped the nation massively. I'm sad that that counterfactual will never be implemented. A liberal occupied country is preferable to an autocratic quasi-democratic (at best) illiberal society IMO.
    So why not engage in this sort of endless occupation in all failed states? A white man's burden, as it were?
  • theProletheProle Posts: 637
    rcs1000 said:

    theProle said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Question for PBers. Do you have an opinion that would embarrass you in front of the mainstream of the political affiliation you identify with?

    Plenty!

    1. Wishing to see the extinction of humankind
    2. Supporting Brexit
    3. Thinking that someone with a cock and balls is a man
    4. Being anti-abortion

    That's enough for now.
    Is anyone actually pro-abortion?

    I would have thought most of its supporters regard its legal status as a necessary evil.
    I'm pro women's right to choose. I don't think anybody suggests abortion should be obligatory.
    Yes, and a harrowing choice it is too in most cases.

    If abortion is forbidden or restricted so much as to be effectively forbidden, you are reducing the status of women in a very fundamental way. They are no longer in charge of their own bodies.

    This issue goes way beyond the woke wars. It's on another level entirely. You CANNOT be on the left and be wanting to ban abortion. Not for me. Not in 2021.
    No. You're totally wrong here

    Ignoring rape, incest etc for a moment, when it comes to sex, women do have charge of their own bodies. Pregnancy is not something which just magically happens to a woman.

    By having sex, you are accepting that there is some risk of pregnancy (and in this day and age there are lots of options for making that risk very small).

    If you aren't happy with this, there is a 100% successful technique for avoiding pregnancy - it's called abstinence. And this is where your autonomy lies. You have a completely free choice as to whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not, and what precautions to take whilst doing so.

    Once you have created a child, it's too late to go back and decide actually you didn't want to run the risk, and having the child killed. That's murder, and it's no more justifiable inside the womb than it is outside.
    Yet the best way to reduce abortion rates is not criminalization, given juries usually refuse to convict, it is sex education and contraception.

    What's your goal? Feeling good about yourself, or minimizing the number of terminations?
    My point was more about the absolute moral logic than "What practically should we do?"

    I'm not sure that I completely buy the "if we ban it, there will be just as much underground" logic. There were over 200k abortions in the UK last year, there is simply no way that this many would all go underground.

    I think one of the things which should be in sex ed is explaining that with rights come responsibilities - this means if you get pregnant, you'll have to bring the child to term.

    Obviously we should support that much better, particularly for vulnerable mothers. And we should make adoption a clear, logical and easy choice for those who really don't want to bring up a child.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Johnson can't string a sentence together and has terrible ratings in literally every country.

    Thatcher was a titan as was Blair. Johnson is nothing close. Even May was better

    No - Thatcher and Blair were both evil in different ways. She was the AntiChrist and he was a war criminal on the basis of indictments presented at Nuremburg.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 637
    edited August 2021
    Aslan said:

    theProle said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Question for PBers. Do you have an opinion that would embarrass you in front of the mainstream of the political affiliation you identify with?

    Plenty!

    1. Wishing to see the extinction of humankind
    2. Supporting Brexit
    3. Thinking that someone with a cock and balls is a man
    4. Being anti-abortion

    That's enough for now.
    Is anyone actually pro-abortion?

    I would have thought most of its supporters regard its legal status as a necessary evil.
    I'm pro women's right to choose. I don't think anybody suggests abortion should be obligatory.
    Yes, and a harrowing choice it is too in most cases.

    If abortion is forbidden or restricted so much as to be effectively forbidden, you are reducing the status of women in a very fundamental way. They are no longer in charge of their own bodies.

    This issue goes way beyond the woke wars. It's on another level entirely. You CANNOT be on the left and be wanting to ban abortion. Not for me. Not in 2021.
    No. You're totally wrong here

    Ignoring rape, incest etc for a moment, when it comes to sex, women do have charge of their own bodies. Pregnancy is not something which just magically happens to a woman.

    By having sex, you are accepting that there is some risk of pregnancy (and in this day and age there are lots of options for making that risk very small).

    If you aren't happy with this, there is a 100% successful technique for avoiding pregnancy - it's called abstinence. And this is where your autonomy lies. You have a completely free choice as to whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not, and what precautions to take whilst doing so.

    Once you have created a child, it's too late to go back and decide actually you didn't want to run the risk, and having the child killed. That's murder, and it's no more justifiable inside the womb than it is outside.
    An embryo is not a child and not a sentient life. The idea that destruction of a few cells with no awareness that it exists is equivalent to murder is ridiculous. Unless of course you believe that some magical implantation of a supernatural soul has happened. And of course there is zero evidence for that.
    The problem is you have to draw a line somewhere, as to what is a human.

    From the point of conception, all the vital stuff is there which gives it it's individual identity as that human. All it needs is to be left alone to grow in the womb, and in due course you have a fully functioning baby.

    Most people seem to think killing babies is wrong.

    Other than arguing for drawing the line at birth (but that's implausible, given that babies are viable to survive outside the womb weeks before birth) there isn't really any other coherent line to draw.

    It's more logical to take the view that once the process of growing a human has been started, then it is a human life, with all the value we attach to that, than to try and define some point in gestation where it suddenly flips from being a bunch of cells to a human.


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,616
    theProle said:

    rcs1000 said:

    theProle said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Question for PBers. Do you have an opinion that would embarrass you in front of the mainstream of the political affiliation you identify with?

    Plenty!

    1. Wishing to see the extinction of humankind
    2. Supporting Brexit
    3. Thinking that someone with a cock and balls is a man
    4. Being anti-abortion

    That's enough for now.
    Is anyone actually pro-abortion?

    I would have thought most of its supporters regard its legal status as a necessary evil.
    I'm pro women's right to choose. I don't think anybody suggests abortion should be obligatory.
    Yes, and a harrowing choice it is too in most cases.

    If abortion is forbidden or restricted so much as to be effectively forbidden, you are reducing the status of women in a very fundamental way. They are no longer in charge of their own bodies.

    This issue goes way beyond the woke wars. It's on another level entirely. You CANNOT be on the left and be wanting to ban abortion. Not for me. Not in 2021.
    No. You're totally wrong here

    Ignoring rape, incest etc for a moment, when it comes to sex, women do have charge of their own bodies. Pregnancy is not something which just magically happens to a woman.

    By having sex, you are accepting that there is some risk of pregnancy (and in this day and age there are lots of options for making that risk very small).

    If you aren't happy with this, there is a 100% successful technique for avoiding pregnancy - it's called abstinence. And this is where your autonomy lies. You have a completely free choice as to whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not, and what precautions to take whilst doing so.

    Once you have created a child, it's too late to go back and decide actually you didn't want to run the risk, and having the child killed. That's murder, and it's no more justifiable inside the womb than it is outside.
    Yet the best way to reduce abortion rates is not criminalization, given juries usually refuse to convict, it is sex education and contraception.

    What's your goal? Feeling good about yourself, or minimizing the number of terminations?
    My point was more about the absolute moral logic than "What practically should we do?"

    I'm not sure that I completely buy the "if we ban it, there will be just as much underground" logic. There were over 200k abortions in the UK last year, there is simply no way that this many would all go underground.

    I think one of the things which should be in sex ed is explaining that with rights come responsibilities - this means if you get pregnant, you'll have to bring the child to term.

    Obviously we should support that much better, particularly for vulnerable mothers. And we should make adoption a clear, logical and easy choice for those who really don't want to bring up a child.
    There's a 250-fold difference in abortion rates across countries with legal abortion. Some places have rates of 0.2 per 1,000 women of child bearing age, while others are above 50.

    At the high end (30+) are countries where abortion is just seen as another form of contraception (mostly Eastern Europe).

    At the low end (less than 10) are countries which typically have low ages of consent, lots of sex education, and easy access to contraception (Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, etc.). In the middle are places like the UK and the US.

    There are also specific things that seem to be pretty effective. In Portugal (right at the bottom of the list), the health service will only pay for your abortion up to the 10th week. After that, while it's legal for a further 10 weeks, you're paying for it yourself.

    Some of the countries at the bottom of the list have legal abortion and yet have rates well under a tenth of that of the UK. (And probably below the rates the UK had prior to legalisation.)

    Simply: there are ways to dramatically cut abortion rates. And yes, improving adoption (which would be an absolute boon for many middle aged women too), is definitely part of that.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,402
    edited August 2021
    justin124 said:

    Johnson can't string a sentence together and has terrible ratings in literally every country.

    Thatcher was a titan as was Blair. Johnson is nothing close. Even May was better

    No - Thatcher and Blair were both evil in different ways. She was the AntiChrist and he was a war criminal on the basis of indictments presented at Nuremburg.
    This site certainly attracts some very strange comments sometimes.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,833
    Aslan said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
    I mean people generally join the army to fight if necessary for their country. Not to ensure schools are full or infant mortality is reduced.
    And if a country agrees that fighting for human rights is part of their nation's objectives?

    Out of interest, would you happily sacrifice the 1,000,000 infants saved, the millions of women educated, and the 40m people who had their human rights supported for a decade, for just 3,500 western lives? If so it's a pretty damning inditement of the value of a western life verses the value of a non-western life to you.
    No nation decides that though and if one did I'm guessing that recruitment would decline somewhat.

    And yours is a fantasy question and doesn't merit an answer.

    And super apologies but I'm going to have to go to bed. I will look at your last word tomorrow morning.
    I don't know, I'd argue that supporting western values directly leads to less risk to the motherland.

    The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan saved many lives, supported human rights, and upheld a good level of women's rights. Given the level of western casualties over the past 5 years, I'd not be completely surprised if they were comparable to western casualties over the next 5 following the start of the withdrawal. ~8 weeks ago I was in a 'spoons in the home counties with a couple of Afghan students who were/are studying how to preserve Islamic heritage at Oxford (the majority sipping OJ of course!), and there was a lot of hope for their nation's future. Seeing what has happened since is crushing.

    Ultimately I guess that I'm young and naive enough that I believe that maintaining the occupation could have helped the nation massively. I'm sad that that counterfactual will never be implemented. A liberal occupied country is preferable to an autocratic quasi-democratic (at best) illiberal society IMO.
    So why not engage in this sort of endless occupation in all failed states? A white man's burden, as it were?
    I'm not sure that missions-of-civilisation are wrong, or uncalled for to be honest. If the west has the resources to drag countries into the modern world with a relatively negligible amount of resources, then they should do so. In order to maximise human welfare the west should seek to minimise child mortality, women being barred from society, and lynchings of gay people.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,616
    theProle said:

    Aslan said:

    theProle said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Question for PBers. Do you have an opinion that would embarrass you in front of the mainstream of the political affiliation you identify with?

    Plenty!

    1. Wishing to see the extinction of humankind
    2. Supporting Brexit
    3. Thinking that someone with a cock and balls is a man
    4. Being anti-abortion

    That's enough for now.
    Is anyone actually pro-abortion?

    I would have thought most of its supporters regard its legal status as a necessary evil.
    I'm pro women's right to choose. I don't think anybody suggests abortion should be obligatory.
    Yes, and a harrowing choice it is too in most cases.

    If abortion is forbidden or restricted so much as to be effectively forbidden, you are reducing the status of women in a very fundamental way. They are no longer in charge of their own bodies.

    This issue goes way beyond the woke wars. It's on another level entirely. You CANNOT be on the left and be wanting to ban abortion. Not for me. Not in 2021.
    No. You're totally wrong here

    Ignoring rape, incest etc for a moment, when it comes to sex, women do have charge of their own bodies. Pregnancy is not something which just magically happens to a woman.

    By having sex, you are accepting that there is some risk of pregnancy (and in this day and age there are lots of options for making that risk very small).

    If you aren't happy with this, there is a 100% successful technique for avoiding pregnancy - it's called abstinence. And this is where your autonomy lies. You have a completely free choice as to whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not, and what precautions to take whilst doing so.

    Once you have created a child, it's too late to go back and decide actually you didn't want to run the risk, and having the child killed. That's murder, and it's no more justifiable inside the womb than it is outside.
    An embryo is not a child and not a sentient life. The idea that destruction of a few cells with no awareness that it exists is equivalent to murder is ridiculous. Unless of course you believe that some magical implantation of a supernatural soul has happened. And of course there is zero evidence for that.
    The problem is you have to draw a line somewhere, as to what is a human.

    From the point of conception, all the vital stuff is there which gives it it's individual identity as that human. All it needs is to be left alone to grow in the womb, and in due course you have a fully functioning baby.

    Most people seem to think killing babies is wrong.

    Other than arguing for drawing the line at birth (but that's implausible, given that babies are viable to survive outside the womb weeks before birth) there isn't really any other coherent line to draw.

    It's more logical to take the view that once the process of growing a human has been started, then it is a human life, with all the value we attach to that, than to try and define some point in gestation where it suddenly flips from being a bunch of cells to a human.


    How do you feel about the "morning after" pill?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,956
    Chameleon said:

    Aslan said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
    I mean people generally join the army to fight if necessary for their country. Not to ensure schools are full or infant mortality is reduced.
    And if a country agrees that fighting for human rights is part of their nation's objectives?

    Out of interest, would you happily sacrifice the 1,000,000 infants saved, the millions of women educated, and the 40m people who had their human rights supported for a decade, for just 3,500 western lives? If so it's a pretty damning inditement of the value of a western life verses the value of a non-western life to you.
    No nation decides that though and if one did I'm guessing that recruitment would decline somewhat.

    And yours is a fantasy question and doesn't merit an answer.

    And super apologies but I'm going to have to go to bed. I will look at your last word tomorrow morning.
    I don't know, I'd argue that supporting western values directly leads to less risk to the motherland.

    The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan saved many lives, supported human rights, and upheld a good level of women's rights. Given the level of western casualties over the past 5 years, I'd not be completely surprised if they were comparable to western casualties over the next 5 following the start of the withdrawal. ~8 weeks ago I was in a 'spoons in the home counties with a couple of Afghan students who were/are studying how to preserve Islamic heritage at Oxford (the majority sipping OJ of course!), and there was a lot of hope for their nation's future. Seeing what has happened since is crushing.

    Ultimately I guess that I'm young and naive enough that I believe that maintaining the occupation could have helped the nation massively. I'm sad that that counterfactual will never be implemented. A liberal occupied country is preferable to an autocratic quasi-democratic (at best) illiberal society IMO.
    So why not engage in this sort of endless occupation in all failed states? A white man's burden, as it were?
    I'm not sure that missions-of-civilisation are wrong, or uncalled for to be honest. If the west has the resources to drag countries into the modern world with a relatively negligible amount of resources, then they should do so. In order to maximise human welfare the west should seek to minimise child mortality, women being barred from society, and lynchings of gay people.
    If you're trying to maximize human welfare for a given budget it's almost unthinkable that you use the military to do it in any significant way. Occupying somebody's country is just insanely expensive, and saving a life in poor countries is very cheap.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,833

    Chameleon said:

    Aslan said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chameleon said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot of fuss over nothing. Relatively. The US announced it was going to pull out and it's pulling out.

    Is it messy? Not really. A couple of bombings which, thanks to smartphones, gets the Twitter in a tizzy.

    But this is what they said they were going to do and they are doing it.

    Who would want them and us to stay?

    A lot of the women and under-30s. Rome wasn't built in a day(cade). Look at the rates of child pregnancies, mortality in childbirth, and female education in 2019 vs 2000 and there's been a massive unprecedented improvement. The population that grew up since 2001 in the cities and the north are very promising, but they just weren't given enough time. That's the true tragedy, the hard work was done, and cost and loss of life would have been relatively minimal for the next decade had the americans not surrendered and fled.
    So just stay in the country for another decade or so to set them straight. Get infant mortality down, some women into school.

    That is a hell of a precedent for intervention you are setting there.
    'some' is somewhat underplaying it.

    Child mortality has halved (133 per 1000 live births to 60 in 2021). 1.12m people are born in Afghanistan each year. That improvement in child mortality is worth 70,000 to 100,000 for every year of the NATO Government

    Do you not think that sacrificing 3,500 Western lives is worth it to save ~1,000,000 children from dying under 5?
    I don't know. What are the geographical boundaries of this effort?

    And it goes without saying that you and your family would be happy to be amongst those 3,500, right?
    That's the beauty of volunteer armies. No one is out there from UK/US who didn't volunteer to do so. Several close family members have served, and if any others do, I fully support their decision. Risk is an inherent part of life. But being part of an army where you increase the risk of dying to save babies from death, give women education, and protect human rights is a noble endeavour.
    I mean people generally join the army to fight if necessary for their country. Not to ensure schools are full or infant mortality is reduced.
    And if a country agrees that fighting for human rights is part of their nation's objectives?

    Out of interest, would you happily sacrifice the 1,000,000 infants saved, the millions of women educated, and the 40m people who had their human rights supported for a decade, for just 3,500 western lives? If so it's a pretty damning inditement of the value of a western life verses the value of a non-western life to you.
    No nation decides that though and if one did I'm guessing that recruitment would decline somewhat.

    And yours is a fantasy question and doesn't merit an answer.

    And super apologies but I'm going to have to go to bed. I will look at your last word tomorrow morning.
    I don't know, I'd argue that supporting western values directly leads to less risk to the motherland.

    The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan saved many lives, supported human rights, and upheld a good level of women's rights. Given the level of western casualties over the past 5 years, I'd not be completely surprised if they were comparable to western casualties over the next 5 following the start of the withdrawal. ~8 weeks ago I was in a 'spoons in the home counties with a couple of Afghan students who were/are studying how to preserve Islamic heritage at Oxford (the majority sipping OJ of course!), and there was a lot of hope for their nation's future. Seeing what has happened since is crushing.

    Ultimately I guess that I'm young and naive enough that I believe that maintaining the occupation could have helped the nation massively. I'm sad that that counterfactual will never be implemented. A liberal occupied country is preferable to an autocratic quasi-democratic (at best) illiberal society IMO.
    So why not engage in this sort of endless occupation in all failed states? A white man's burden, as it were?
    I'm not sure that missions-of-civilisation are wrong, or uncalled for to be honest. If the west has the resources to drag countries into the modern world with a relatively negligible amount of resources, then they should do so. In order to maximise human welfare the west should seek to minimise child mortality, women being barred from society, and lynchings of gay people.
    If you're trying to maximize human welfare for a given budget it's almost unthinkable that you use the military to do it in any significant way. Occupying somebody's country is just insanely expensive, and saving a life in poor countries is very cheap.
    Depends if you consider the existing military spending to be a sunk cost or not, if you assume te military occupation to be a cost that will be spend regardless then it becomes very efficient.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,885
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Biden is a rambling old fool...what he says makes little to no sense.

    Xi and Putin must be pissing themselves, Trump then this guy.

    It’s bad to say it, but a mad Trump would be better right now in dealing with the Taliban.
    Spot on. As the old prison saying goes “better mad than bad”. The Taliban wouldn’t have tried this sh1t if Trump was in power for fear of what he would do. They don’t fear Biden.

    Ps if the Taliban don’t fear Biden, you can bet neither do Xi or Putin. Which raises the risk that China tries something with Taiwan and / or Russia with the Ukraine and / or the Baltic’s.
    The thing is you can't expect a country that has so many problems at home to keep intervening in foreign affairs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years or so for instance.
    The US really doesn’t have much choice. If it retreats into a Fortress America attitude, then what happens if China invades Taiwan and controls semiconductor supplies, the EU feels the need to kowtow to Russia etc.

    The sad fact is that the States could handle both the domestic issues it has and it’s foreign commitments if their politicians didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with all the woke sh1t.
    It's not particularly easy for China to invade Taiwan.

    The distance is quite a lot further than the Channel, and Taiwan has quite a strong military - including a bunch of newly upgraded F16s.

    There's never been a successful invasion of an island the size of Taiwan before
    In the First Sino Japanese War, there was a successful invasion of a fairly large island called *checks notes* Formosa.

    It is now called *checks notes again* Taiwan.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,077
    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Question for PBers. Do you have an opinion that would embarrass you in front of the mainstream of the political affiliation you identify with?

    Plenty!

    1. Wishing to see the extinction of humankind
    2. Supporting Brexit
    3. Thinking that someone with a cock and balls is a man
    4. Being anti-abortion

    That's enough for now.
    Is anyone actually pro-abortion?

    I would have thought most of its supporters regard its legal status as a necessary evil.
    I'm pro women's right to choose. I don't think anybody suggests abortion should be obligatory.
    Yes, and a harrowing choice it is too in most cases.

    If abortion is forbidden or restricted so much as to be effectively forbidden, you are reducing the status of women in a very fundamental way. They are no longer in charge of their own bodies.

    This issue goes way beyond the woke wars. It's on another level entirely. You CANNOT be on the left and be wanting to ban abortion. Not for me. Not in 2021.
    So you think the status of women is fundamental and important. Good. I am going to remember that for the future.
This discussion has been closed.