Canada depends on the US. But the camel’s straw is hardly Afghanistan. We got a wee bit suspicious of Trump after he threw a hissy fit at a G-20 meeting and started personally attacking the Prime Minister. Most Canadians like NAFTA, and Trump was very slightly critical of trade;deals - though of course Trump is so inscrutable it is very hard to know his feelings on any issue. Biden is so much more blunt, that guy just tells it like it is without a filter.
Seriously? you’re parsing words for the sake of argument? Parliament actually took the time to publicly dress down Biden. His treatment of Prime Minister Johnson was disgraceful.
Biden has severely weakened any credibility this country had as a NATO partner.
And your comment about Presidents taking vacation time was just pointless. Of course Presidents take vacations. Camp David exists as a retreat from the daily work load and all Presidents routinely pack up and go back to their favorite rest area. They’re reported in the news as vacations. Being on vacation doesn’t mean a divorce from all job related work.
Clearly in this case Biden was on vacation while the taliban tore through Afghanistan and that is how it was reported in the news despite your opinion of terminology.
Nobody said “permanent unconditional presence”. That’s a strawman you created for the sake of argument. We HAD a military base 100 miles from the Pakistan border and the taliban was severely limited in Afghanistan because of it. That’s what it took to support the effort. 50,000 plus Afghani died defending their country with air support we supplied from that base. That’s what it took, local boots on the ground. All that has been destroyed.
If the status quo was desirable and the only foreign military prescence required was air support, Canada and the UK and whoever else could have provided that without US support. It’s not like no one knew the US was pulling out.
This entire premise is predicated on the idea that no foreign government was willing to make the commitment the US was, so its hard to now take their anger at us seriously for having pulled out.
A failure that is owned by more than one president. Saying anything to the contrary is not arguing or debating in good faith. If Afghanistan was so ‘winnable’ it would have been won in the first year or two. Blaming Biden is like blaming Parkland Hospital trauma surgeons for not figuring out a way to save President Kennedy’s obliterated brain.
Again, Sam, Cyprus ain’t Afghanistan. Canadian “peacekeepers” aren’t gonna last long in Afghanistan.
Another disingenuous argument. Seriously, everyone on this board knows that this is a dishonest smear considering how it was Donald Trump who negotiated with the Taliban exclusively. This is a lie. I would appreciate it if you would stop lying. Mods might sanction me for this, but they should sanction you first because everyone reading this knows it’s a lie
I mean you weren’t even the one who made the false claim about a “parliamentary censure”, which again, appeared to just be a few random MPs spouting off in an open session, so I’m not sure why you’d stick your neck out on that piece of nonsense. If you’d like to do what @Sam_Stone would not do since he obviously had been caught making things up, maybe you can offer proof the Westminster Parliament “censured Joe Biden.”
And no, the Presidency does not stop because the President is in Camp David. In fact Camp David is generally a much better place to work from than most of the other private sites recent Presidents have spent time at. The security apparatus there is better formed, less expensive for taxpayers, they literally have setup for staffers to work there, they have the equivalent of a SCIF there etc. The President can literally run WWII from Camp David (and has), the idea Biden isn’t able to address stuff in Afghanistan from Camp David is not accurate and false. The continual practice of partisans “making issue” of the President not being in the White House has always been stupid, and I’ve called it out for every President. It’s not a good faith commentary, OR it means you’re ignorant of how the Presidency operates.
How long did you want to remain in Afghanistan and to what number of troops? It’s easy to blather on nonsense, let’s hear your specifics for the great Magiver Afghan plan.
last years numbers. as long as it’s in our interest.
It was never in our interest to prop up the corrupt, incompetent, kleptocratic government of Afghanistan, and certainly not at the financial and human cost that doing it for 20 years took from us.
The Karzai-Ghani regime wasn’t much better than Pinochet’s Chile or Iran under the Shah, and continuing to keep it on life support was immoral.
WHat was immoral was not having an actual succession plan.
Warning for asahi. You were just recently reminded to attack the post and not the poster. You knew what you were posting was not allowed and posted it anyway.
Honestly all you had to do was post this is not correct, check your facts or something like that. Please be careful going forward. Your warnings and notes are adding up lately.
Last year’s numbers were 2500, which if the Taliban were actively resisting, could not hold the country. The last time we had extensive combat with the Taliban we had to have over 40,000 troops in the country. When we indicated our 2500 were going to stay forever so the Taliban ramped attacks back up, would you be in favor of increasing U.S. troop deployments back up to the 40,000+ level that had been required to hold back the Taliban the last time they were actively going after us? If not, how would you viably defend the country with 2500? If so, how long would you be willing to continue a deployment of 40,000+ troops?
that’s your opinion. You could have made the same statement about ISIS in Syria. or any of the other interventions made over the years in places like Yemen and Africa.
But once we engaged the population of Afghanistan we had a moral obligation to the people who worked with us.
I thought that was what the money was for…
You have an amazing talent for making stuff up as if it were true and then making an argument out of it.
There’s a simple test for the success of the recent level of troops. What would happen if they were removed?. We can see the answer. The Taliban immediately swept across the entire country in a very short period of time.
This is very bad. Is Hillary giving it?
[removed tweet with links]
Is Hillary giving what? The ever lovin’ fuck are you even talking about?..
I mean these are simply the sort of questions that have to be answered when you are advocating a military deployment to a hostile country. What we actually know is that with 2500 troops, the Taliban had no problem, going back a year to when the Doha Agreement was signed, and even as far back as 2017, signing deals with local commanders to surrender in exchange for cash and other promises. In fact long before even the Doha agreement, the Taliban was significantly active throughout rural Afghanistan (something like 70% of Afghanistan’s population live in rural areas.)
There is simply no evidence that 2500 soldiers would be enough to keep Afghanistan safe if the Taliban actively was fighting against them. We know for an absolute fact, that the Taliban has not been actively trying to attack U.S. troops in any significant number for the last 2-3 years, and that’s precisely because they expected that we were leaving, and they saw it as a fruitless effort and waste of resources.
The fact that you’re unwilling to consider any broader implications of your desire to keep 2500 troops in country “forever”, including if conditions on the ground change, means your proposal is not serious, and can frankly be discarded. Until you show a willingness to actually engage on the issues from a place of knowledge, I won’t engage with you further in this thread–it will simply be noted it is a fact you have said many things incorrectly and are promoting a continuation of a strategy that has clearly been a failure for 20 years.
This is an attack on the poster, not the post.
Don’t do that.