Biden stands by his decision to abandon Afghanistan - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15185835
"I stand squarely behind my decision," Biden said about his decision to pull troops out of Afghanistan, during a prepared speech at the White House.​

Afghan security forces dissolved as the Taliban raced to Kabul in a matter to days. Protesters blocked access to the airport as the U.S. scrambled to get its people out of the country.​

At one point, dozens of supporters jogged beside and in front of a military transport plane, trying to prevent it from taking off. Some clung to the plane itself and fell to their deaths as it ascended.​

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said it was "an embarrassment for our country and a victory for terrorists around the world."​

McConnell said the US has "abandoned the women and children of Afghanistan to these barbarians," and left behind thousands of Afghan allies. "We turned our backs on our friends and left the country in chaos."​

'I stand squarely behind my decision': Biden defends handling of Afghanistan as Taliban seizes Kabul, USA Today, August 16, 2021
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp


Wow, looks like some of those people were desperate to escape the Taliban and didn't want American forces to leave.

I don't think anyone is going to be building a statue of Biden out of thanks.
#15185846
@Rancid

I agree, McConnell is an idiot and just a political opportunist trying to preserve his own power. There was no reason for our forces to stay in Afghanistan. You can't stay in a place like Afghanistan forever. You give the locals there a chance to form their own government after throwing out a repressive regime like the Taliban and have elections and help train their forces, after that, it's up to them to fight their own battles. They got it want for themselves. We can help our allies but we can't do all the fighting for them. It's ultimately up to them to do their own fighting.
#15185864
@Beren

Ohh there were terrorists in Afghanistan. I can guarantee you that. They were a legitimate threat to the U.S. that we needed to respond to. And we certainly put a serious hurting on them. That being said, I agree we should look into the whole Saudi Arabia connections with the 9/11 Al-Queda terrorists.
#15185866
Politics_Observer wrote:@Beren

Ohh there were terrorists in Afghanistan. I can guarantee you that. They were a legitimate threat to the U.S. that we needed to respond to. And we certainly put a serious hurting on them. That being said, I agree we should look into the whole Saudi Arabia connections with the 9/11 Al-Queda terrorists.

There are terrorists all over the Middle East, I can guarantee you that, they may be a legitimate threat to the U.S. that you need to respond to as well, so maybe you should wage a real crusade on them. :lol:
#15185867
@Politics_Observer , you said;

I agree, McConnell is an idiot and just a political opportunist trying to preserve his own power. There was no reason for our forces to stay in Afghanistan. You can't stay in a place like Afghanistan forever. You give the locals there a chance to form their own government after throwing out a repressive regime like the Taliban and have elections and help train their forces, after that, it's up to them to fight their own battles. They got it want for themselves. We can help our allies but we can't do all the fighting for them. It's ultimately up to them to do their own fighting.




I'll remember you said all this when you're down for US Troops in Poland, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia... To ''aid our allies against Russian aggression''.

I'll remember you said that when you're down for US Troops in Asian countries to ''aid our allies against Chinese aggression''

Since 1945, American government-sent US Troops have never left anywhere they have occupied, not willingly.
#15185869
Politics_Observer wrote:@Rancid

I agree, McConnell is an idiot and just a political opportunist trying to preserve his own power. There was no reason for our forces to stay in Afghanistan. You can't stay in a place like Afghanistan forever. You give the locals there a chance to form their own government after throwing out a repressive regime like the Taliban and have elections and help train their forces, after that, it's up to them to fight their own battles. They got it want for themselves. We can help our allies but we can't do all the fighting for them. It's ultimately up to them to do their own fighting.



I believe the angst is way way more from the left than the right. cnn, msnbc, washingtonpost are doing their best to pin it on Senile Joe :lol:
#15185872
@annatar1914

annatar1914 wrote:I'll remember you said all this when you're down for US Troops in Poland, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia... To ''aid our allies against Russian aggression''.

I'll remember you said that when you're down for US Troops in Asian countries to ''aid our allies against Chinese aggression''

Since 1945, American government-sent US Troops have never left anywhere they have occupied, not willingly.


These countries are not Afghanistan and more than willing to fight their own battles. Moreover, they are allies and had troops assisting our troops in Afghanistan. In addition, they are NATO treaty members and we are part of that alliance and obliged to assist our allies in the event of Russian aggression. We made that commitment in writing when we and they joined NATO. It's got to mean something. We are not trying to start a war, we are trying to prevent and deter a war. But if the Russians attack, we must be ready to fight.
#15185885
Politics_Observer wrote:@annatar1914




annatar1914 wrote:
I'll remember you said all this when you're down for US Troops in Poland, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia... To ''aid our allies against Russian aggression''.
I'll remember you said that when you're down for US Troops in Asian countries to ''aid our allies against Chinese aggression''
Since 1945, American government-sent US Troops have never left anywhere they have occupied, not willingly.<<




Politics_Observer << These countries are not Afghanistan and more than willing to fight their own battles. Moreover, they are allies and had troops assisting our troops in Afghanistan. In addition, they are NATO treaty members and we are part of that alliance and obliged to assist our allies in the event of Russian aggression. We made that commitment in writing when we and they joined NATO. It's got to mean something. We are not trying to start a war, we are trying to prevent and deter a war. But if the Russians attack, we must be ready to fight.<<



The questions the Poles, Ukrainians, Baltics are asking themselves is what worth is a US commitment. When the US went into Afghanistan after 9/11 the commitment by the US, its Nato allies and others was that Afghanistan was never gonna be abandoned, like it was abandoned after the Soviets left.
#15185896
Just a question... Aren't you people who say we can't impose our way of life in other countries the same people who say we need to let people from other countries come here so they can be helped?

That seems more than a little inconsistent.

If we can help them here in our country, why can't we help them in their country where they are? Why can't we use military force to help them?
What's really the inherent difference between helping them in one country versus helping them in another?

This whole disaster is probably going to create a refugee crisis.
#15185917
The US only ever wanted the pipelines safe.

They got a deal with the Taliban for that, and the rest is unimportant to the US government.

Puffer Fish wrote:What's really the inherent difference between helping them in one country versus helping them in another?


Well, when the US sends in military forces, they are not helping people: they are killing them. Or to put it another way, the US gets to choose how they help the Afghanis and the Afghanis do not get to refuse. When the US and other countries provide asylum for translators and other Afghanis who helped US and western troops, the Afghanis get to choose how they are helped.

We call this difference “freedom”.

Puffer Fish wrote:This whole disaster is probably going to create a refugee crisis.


It already did.

But yes, it is now doing so again.
#15185930
Pants-of-dog wrote:The US only ever wanted the pipelines safe.

They got a deal with the Taliban for that, and the rest is unimportant to the US government.


I fail to see Taliban will hold their end of this deal, if it exists.
#15185935
Puffer Fish wrote:Just a question... Aren't you people who say we can't impose our way of life in other countries the same people who say we need to let people from other countries come here so they can be helped?

That seems more than a little inconsistent.

If we can help them here in our country, why can't we help them in their country where they are? Why can't we use military force to help them?
What's really the inherent difference between helping them in one country versus helping them in another?

This whole disaster is probably going to create a refugee crisis.




Very good observation
#15185936
Yeah, saw the live broadcast. Have to say I agreed with Biden completely. What was the point of can kicking? The wrong decision as Beren stated was going there to begin with. That was a Republican decision so perhaps the Republicans, like McConnell, could perhaps take some responsibility also.

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

There are conditions that must be met for Ukraine[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]