Fall of Afghanistan - What does shipping cost if I'm a Blackwater Prime subscriber?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Fall of Afghanistan - What does shipping cost if I'm a Blackwater Prime subscriber?

«‹›48 »

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Sinteres posted:

Yeah no loving way on the bolded part. China already controls the global supply of rare earth minerals, and isn't going to give a poo poo about a few billion dollars enough to change their Uighur policies one inch. Afghanistan isn't an important country economically despite all the attempts to provide the war with a rational material basis, and China hasn't had to bend their policies to get some of the most important Muslim countries in the world to not only ignore but actively praise their policies in Xinxiang. China isn't going to ask the Taliban to overlook their sins, they're going to ask the Taliban to actively take part by deporting Uighurs or else.

Are you telling me no one can turn Afghanistan into Wakanda?

# ? Aug 17, 2021 17:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 11:14

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Postorder Trollet89 posted:

I remember when this forum went full neocon over Libya during the Arab spring and how awesome everything was gonna be when we bombed Ghaddafi away. There is this tendancy to become slaves to the media cycle whenever theres some American disaster/initiative being done.

Don't let these tales of womens rights confuse you. Much of the country was run basically the same way as when the taliban ran it, with the Northern Alliance in charge. The only places you saw even a little social progress in was the urban areas with a strong foreign security presence. Literacy rate among women in parts of the countryside was still like 1-2% after 20 years. The USSR and their puppet regime had the exact same problem, a lack of institutional reach.

Is it sad to see what little gain has been made likely lost? Sure, but let's not pretend as if it's alot, or worth 250.000 corpses and 20 years of occupation. Afghanistan was never going to stabilize with such a strong foreign presence.

Can you please provide a source for this claim of yours? In 2015, the literacy rate for women in rural Afghanistan was estimated at 7%. I cannot find any up to date statistics on this rural areas, just the overall literacy rate of women in Afghanistan.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 17:52

Grooglon: Nov 3, 2010; You did the right thing by calling us.

Flip Yr Wig posted:

It increasingly looks like the Taliban wants to be good and investment-friendly, and understand that liberal optics are part of the package. Hard to tell if that's purely surface-level or not.

All the direct quotes from Afghani women in Afghanistan that I am reading in today's news stories indicate that the majority of them are terrified. Many are in hiding. People are literally killing themselves in frantic attempts to leave Kabul, and I assume they understand the intentions of the Taliban more than I ever will.

Not directed at you at all, but there is absolutely no reason to believe the Taliban over the words of Afghani women, and it's really disappointing to see how easily some folks are writing it off.

Edited to add: US occupation of Afghanistan should never have happened. There are no winners here today.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 17:52

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

OctaMurk posted:

The rest of his speech was actually pretty good, imo, at explaining that we needed to leave.

His was a rational speech that explained why the US had to get out. But, at the same time, he put all the blame of the fall on the afgahns which is both not true and a lovely thing to do to your supposed allies.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 17:59

Staluigi: Jun 22, 2021

at least what we got from biden was the genuine article. at the end of the day, we were going to sour grapes it and blame the afghans for not perfectly adapting to our occupation and accommodating our disruptions. biden is wholly like anyone else in his mummified political caste, prone to narratives that let you start believing poo poo like "they must just not have wanted freedom enough"

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:08

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

VitalSigns posted:

Well helldumping isn't allowed but since someone was helpful enough to provide an example right here that you asked for sean10mm: This is exactly what I was talking about

I didn't say the Taliban are good, I said they are bad in many ways. They just aren't the mindless swarthy barbarian killing machines that the Western media and war propaganda offices (but I repeat myself) portray them as, and since killing everyone isn't in their best interests there's at least plausible arguments that self-interest may win out over the urge for reprisal mass killings. Especially since their military and diplomatic victory depended on part on bringing minority populations into coalition with them that they'd previously oppressed.

But that savage barbarian frame is so intense that this isn't even treated as a valid subject for debate. The whole basis for the war (once the US government realized they'd invaded the wrong county) was that we were protecting Afghans from a bloodbath bigger than the 200,000 civilians who have died in the occupation so far, and thus anyone who doubts this violent orgy is inevitable is immediately pegged as some kind of Taliban lover and in my case a self-hating queer (???) who just loves Shariah law (???).

Again the war propaganda played on people's fears of foreign hordes etc etc, and those fears are so ingrained (and cynically cultivated and manipulated by those in power) that if they're even questioned you get this kind of lashing out.

The only reason it can even be discussed somewhat reasonably now is that the predicted massacre didn't occur immediately and it got too embarrassing to keep insisting that it's imminent, because if the Taliban truly couldn't control their ids they've had plenty of time to start it by now

I totally agree with you that people have been generally unwilling to have that debate, and it's definitely true that people flip out when you even slightly defend them.

I'll have that debate, though. It would not have been at all out of character for the late 1990s Taliban to start purging those in the former government, entirely independent of this "barbarian killing machine" framing... it's just the sort of poo poo they actually did. International acceptance wasn't super on their radar. I think the Taliban have learned somewhat from ISIS and also from having to rebuild an effective force through popular support and organization, and are just going to be a little different from being a new generation. They're still extremely conservative jihadists and I expect they'll do some horrible things that are not in their rational self-interest, particularly on the international stage.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:09

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

trucutru posted:

His was a rational speech that explained why the US had to get out. But, at the same time, he put all the blame of the fall on the afgahns which is both not true and a lovely thing to do to your supposed allies.

I mean, we already stabbed the Afghan government the back in negotiating this entire Peace treaty. While they would've likely never been ready, Pompeo and Trump cut them out entirely from the negotiating process, and at that point they were basically ready to cut and run because they knew the US didn't give a crap about them anymore.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:11

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Postorder Trollet89 posted:

Don't let these tales of womens rights confuse you. Much of the country was run basically the same way as when the taliban ran it, with the Northern Alliance in charge.

Yep this has been brought up several times but is always pointedly ignored because it's devastating to The Narrative that the occupation was protecting women's rights.

At best the occupation was fine with women's rights where they could install leaders who supported that (the big cities basically, same places that had supported the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan that we helped destroy), but was 100% optional and thrown away immediately wherever it was easier to recruit a reactionary warlord as a proxy instead.

Which should be obvious when you compare the US's enthusiastic support for repressive misogynistic regimes as long as they're willing to be US clients. The US would obviously be just fine with a reactionary fundamentalist authoritarian monarchy in Afghanistan if they could get one that supported US geopolitical interests.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:11

Postorder Trollet89: Jan 12, 2008; Sweden doesn't do religion. But if they did, it would probably be the best religion in the world.

Kalit posted:

Can you please provide a source for this claim of yours? In 2015, the literacy rate for women in rural Afghanistan was estimated at 7%. I cannot find any up to date statistics on this rural areas, just the overall literacy rate of women in Afghanistan.

The link is dead now but it used to be in here: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/kabul/education/youth-and-adult-education/enhancement-of-literacy-in-afghanistan-iii/

Now that was only in some areas, and in 2015, so might have increased. It is also likely that the rural average was higher and more in line with your figure but it's still very low. My point was though that the educational system, like the rest of the insititutions of the government, had no real reach.

Postorder Trollet89 fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Aug 17, 2021

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:15

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

CommieGIR posted:

I mean, we already stabbed the Afghan government the back in negotiating this entire Peace treaty. While they would've likely never been ready, Pompeo and Trump cut them out entirely from the negotiating process, and at that point they were basically ready to cut and run because they knew the US didn't give a crap about them anymore.

With all the equipment and personnel they had, if it was anything more than a paper army, they should have been able to hold their own even without American support. It's understandable that the Afghans didn't believe in their government, but on some level surrendering massive material advantages due to lack of morale is kind of a failure regardless of what the US did or didn't do. If the US ever falls to a dictatorship, I think it'll be fair to put at least some blame on a bunch of Americans who let it happen here too.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:16

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Sinteres posted:

With all the equipment and personnel they had, if it was anything more than a paper army, they should have been able to hold their own even without American support. It's understandable that the Afghans didn't believe in their government, but on some level surrendering massive material advantages due to lack of morale is kind of a failure regardless of what the US did or didn't do. If the US ever falls to a dictatorship, I think it'll be fair to put at least some blame on a bunch of Americans who let it happen here too.

IIRC the Army was starving, hadn't been paid, the government was demoralized believing they were not part of the process anyways.

It was rotted to the core, and our actions didn't inspire any confidence in them.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:17

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/us/politics/afghanistan-intelligence-biden-administration.html

Lesson: When you're make your analyses mushy, you can say it wasn't your fault when everything goes to poo poo.

quote:

Intelligence Warned of Afghan Military Collapse, Despite Biden�s Assurances
Even as the president was telling the public that Kabul was unlikely to fall, intelligence assessments painted a grimmer picture.

By Mark Mazzetti, Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman
Aug. 17, 2021, 12:47 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON � Classified assessments by American spy agencies over the summer painted an increasingly grim picture of the prospect of a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and warned of the rapid collapse of the Afghan military, even as President Biden and his advisers said publicly that was unlikely to happen as quickly, according to current and former American government officials.

By July, many intelligence reports grew more pessimistic, questioning whether any Afghan security forces would muster serious resistance and whether the government could hold on in Kabul, the capital. President Biden said on July 8 that the Afghan government was unlikely to fall and that there would be no chaotic evacuations of Americans similar to the end of the Vietnam War.

The drumbeat of warnings over the summer raise questions about why Biden administration officials, and military planners in Afghanistan, seemed ill-prepared to deal with the Taliban�s final push into Kabul, including a failure to ensure security at the main airport and rushing thousands more troops back to the country to protect the United States� final exit.

One report in July � as dozens of Afghan districts were falling and Taliban fighters were laying siege to several major cities � laid out the growing risks to Kabul, noting that the Afghan government was unprepared for a Taliban assault, according to a person familiar with the intelligence.

Intelligence agencies predicted that should the Taliban seize cities, a cascading collapse could happen rapidly and the Afghan security forces were at high risk of falling apart. It is unclear whether other reports during this period presented a more optimistic picture about the ability of the Afghan military and the government in Kabul to withstand the Taliban.

A historical analysis provided to Congress concluded that the insurgents had learned lessons from their takeover of the country in the 1990s. This time, the report said, the Taliban would first secure border crossings, commandeer provincial capitals and seize swaths of the country�s north before moving in on Kabul, a prediction that proved accurate.

But key American decisions were made long before July, when the consensus among intelligence agencies was that the Afghan government could hang on for as long as two years, which would have left ample time for an orderly exit. On April 27, when the State Department ordered the departure of nonessential personnel from the embassy in Kabul, the overall intelligence assessment was still that a Taliban takeover was at least 18 months away, according to administration officials.

One senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified intelligence reports, said that even by July, as the situation grew more volatile, intelligence agencies never offered a clear prediction of an imminent Taliban takeover. The official said their assessments were also not given a �high confidence� judgment, the agencies� highest level of certainty.

As late as a week before Kabul�s fall, the overall intelligence analysis was that a Taliban takeover was not yet inevitable, the official said.

Spokeswomen for the C.I.A. and the director of national intelligence declined to discuss the assessments given to the White House. But intelligence officials acknowledged that their agencies� analysis had been sober and that the assessments had changed in recent weeks and months.

During his speech on Monday, Mr. Biden said that his administration �planned for every contingency� in Afghanistan but that the situation �did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated.�

Facing clear evidence of the collapse of Afghan forces, American officials have begun to cast blame internally, including statements from the White House that have suggested an intelligence failure. Such finger-pointing often occurs after major national security breakdowns, but it will take weeks or months for a more complete picture to emerge of the decision-making in the Biden administration that led to the chaos in Kabul in recent days.

Intelligence agencies have long predicted an ultimate Taliban victory, even before President Donald J. Trump and Mr. Biden decided to withdraw forces. Those estimates provided a range of timelines. While they raised questions about the will of the Afghan security forces to fight without Americans by their side, they did not predict a collapse within weeks.

But in recent months, assessments became ever more pessimistic as the Taliban made larger gains, according to current and former officials. The reports this summer questioned in stark terms the will of Afghan security forces to fight and the ability of the Kabul government to hold power. With each report of mass desertions, a former official said, the Afghan government looked less stable.

Another C.I.A. report in July noted that the security forces and central government had lost control of the roads leading into Kabul and assessed that the viability of the central government was in serious jeopardy. Other reports by the State Department�s intelligence and research division also noted the failure of Afghan forces to fight the Taliban and suggested the deteriorating security conditions could lead to the collapse of the government, according to government officials.

�The business of intelligence is not to say you know on Aug. 15 the Afghan government�s going to fall,� said Timothy S. Bergreen, a former staff director for the House Intelligence Committee. �But what everybody knew is that without the stiffening of the international forces and specifically our forces, the Afghans were incapable of defending or governing themselves.�

Afghanistan received little attention in the annual threat assessment released in April by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; but the brief discussion was dire, noting the Taliban was confident it could achieve a military victory.

�The Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and the Afghan government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support,� the report said.

But current and former officials said that while it was true that the C.I.A. predicted a collapse of the Afghan government, it was often hard to get agency analysts to clearly predict how quickly that would occur, especially as Mr. Trump and then Mr. Biden made decisions on how fast to draw down troops.

Two former senior Trump administration officials who reviewed some of the C.I.A.�s assessments of Afghanistan said the intelligence agencies did deliver warnings about the strength of the Afghan government and security forces. But the agency resisted giving an exact time frame and the assessments could often be interpreted in a variety of ways, including concluding that Afghanistan could fall quickly or possibly over time.

Sharp disagreements have also persisted in the intelligence community. The C.I.A. for years has been pessimistic about the training of the Afghan security forces. But the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence shops within the Pentagon delivered more optimistic assessments about the Afghans� preparedness, according to current and former officials.

Military and intelligence assessments predicting that the government in Kabul could hold on at least a year before a Taliban takeover were built on a premise that proved to be flawed: that the Afghan army would put up a fight.

�Most of the U.S. assessments inside and outside the U.S. government had focused on how well the Afghan security forces would fare in a fight with the Taliban. In reality, they never really fought� during the Taliban blitz across the country, said Seth G. Jones, an Afghanistan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Two decades ago, this dynamic played out in reverse. When U.S.-backed Afghan militias began capturing territory from the Taliban in late 2001, Taliban fighters folded relatively quickly, and both Kabul and Kandahar fell before the end of that year.

Some Taliban surrendered, some switched sides, and far larger numbers simply melted into the population to begin planning what would become a 20-year insurgency.

Intelligence officials have long observed that Afghans make cold calculations about who is likely to prevail in a conflict and back the winning side, a tactic that allows for battlefield gains to accumulate quickly until a tipping point turns the fight into a rout, according to current and former analysts.

At the core of the American loss in Afghanistan was the inability to build a security force that could stand on its own, but that error was compounded by Washington�s failure to listen to those raising questions about the Afghan military.

Part of the problem, according to former officials, is that the can-do attitude of the military frequently got in the way of candid accurate assessments of how the Afghan security forces were doing. Though no one was blind to desertions or battlefield losses, American commanders given the task of training the Afghan military were reluctant to admit their efforts were failing.

Even those in the military skeptical of the skills of the Afghan security forces believed they would continue to fight for a time after the Americans left.

For months, intelligence officials have been making comparisons between the Afghan national security forces and the South Vietnamese army at the end of the Vietnam War. It took two years for South Vietnam�s military, known by the American acronym ARVN, to collapse after the United States withdrew troops and financial support. Optimists believed the Afghan military � with American funding � could last nearly as long. Pessimists thought it would be far shorter.

�For the last two or three years I have been ruefully remarking that A.N.S.F. is Afghan for ARVN,� said Mr. Bergreen, who worked on intelligence matters on Capitol Hill from 2003 to 2021. �There was an acknowledgment that the Afghan forces were not up to the long-term fight. But I don�t think anyone expected them to melt away quite that fast.�

Recent Taliban diplomatic maneuvers with other countries in the region, most notably China, lent an air of inevitability to a Taliban takeover that further demoralized Afghan government troops, Mr. Jones said.

In the end, analysts said, the Taliban won with the strategy that has so often proved successful during Afghanistan�s many decades of war � they outlasted their opponent.

�I am not that surprised it was as fast and sweeping as it was,� said Lisa Maddox, a former C.I.A. analyst. �The Taliban certainly has shown their ability to persevere, hunker down and come back even after they have been beaten back. And you have a population that is so tired and weary of conflict that they are going to flip and support the winning side so they can survive.�

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:23

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

If the US didn't care about women, why are we using our vast influence and wealth to force the Saudi's to make their country the feminist utopia it is today, after decades of work?

I bet nobody thought of that.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:25

Flip Yr Wig: Feb 21, 2007; Oh please do go on; Fun Shoe

Sinteres posted:

With all the equipment and personnel they had, if it was anything more than a paper army, they should have been able to hold their own even without American support. It's understandable that the Afghans didn't believe in their government, but on some level surrendering massive material advantages due to lack of morale is kind of a failure regardless of what the US did or didn't do. If the US ever falls to a dictatorship, I think it'll be fair to put at least some blame on a bunch of Americans who let it happen here too.

If you have absolutely no faith in your government, I don't see how deciding not to risk your life for it is a failure, especially knowing that whatever material advantages that government has are currently being stolen.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:25

OctaMurk: Jun 21, 2013

CommieGIR posted:

IIRC the Army was starving, hadn't been paid, the government was demoralized believing they were not part of the process anyways.

It was rotted to the core, and our actions didn't inspire any confidence in them.

A big part of the reason the Army was starving and unpaid is because the Afghan leaders stole their money and materiel. And yes, it is our fault for enabling thieves. But the thieves are also to blame for being thieves.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:26

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

I'll have that debate, though. It would not have been at all out of character for the late 1990s Taliban to start purging those in the former government, entirely independent of this "barbarian killing machine" framing... it's just the sort of poo poo they actually did. International acceptance wasn't super on their radar. I think the Taliban have learned somewhat from ISIS and also from having to rebuild an effective force through popular support and organization, and are just going to be a little different from being a new generation. They're still extremely conservative jihadists and I expect they'll do some horrible things that are not in their rational self-interest, particularly on the international stage.

Yeah sure. If you're going to go back decades you can also bring up US atrocities in Latin America and say that since they have a history of mass murder nothing they say can ever be trusted again. If we're not going to have a double standard here, we at least have to recognize that organizations and governments aren't automatically the same as they were decades ago.

But yes I agree that people don't always act in their rational self-interest and there are at least plausible arguments that the Taliban might massacre all the collaborators anyway even if it results in the worst case scenario for them of renewed US will to deploy 100,000 troops and restart the war.

It's at least a realistic enough possibility that everyone understands why collaborators were at the Kabul airport trying to get out rather than betting their life on the Taliban's promise of amnesty (well that and the Taliban can't mind control the whole country so even if they don't kill you, depending on what you did for the Americans the friends and relatives of the people you sold out to your former imperial masters might take violence into their own hands)

But when we're talking about foreign policy we need to be able to debate how likely is that really, is it likely to justify prolonging a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people already, is it a moral obligation to invade any government anywhere we think might kill a bunch of people, if so is that even a benefit if the invasion and occupation kills even more people, are we even capable of imposing a new government that doesn't collapse and end up with the 'bad guys' back in charge. And that all presumes preventing violence is even an objective of the US which, in my personal opinion: LOOOOOLLLLL

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Aug 17, 2021

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:29

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

OctaMurk posted:

A big part of the reason the Army was starving and unpaid is because the Afghan leaders stole their money and materiel. And yes, it is our fault for enabling thieves. But the thieves are also to blame for being thieves.

I'd argue that enabling thieves is a more central mission tenet to our occupation than any sort of human rights concerns.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:30

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Jaxyon posted:

I'd argue that enabling thieves is a more central mission tenet to our occupation than any sort of human rights concerns.

Truer words have not been spoken Jaxyon.

Also:

https://twitter.com/justinpodur/status/1427328916021252097?s=20
300% increase in 2019.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:34

OctaMurk: Jun 21, 2013

Jaxyon posted:

I'd argue that enabling thieves is a more central mission tenet to our occupation than any sort of human rights concerns.

Sure, there were thieves in the American forces as well. The Colonels and Generals who repeatedly told the American public that victory was around the corner. That just one more year and the Afghans would be able to stand completely on their own. That we need to stay or else Al Quaeda will be back and we'll have another 9/11. They get a promotion, pad their pension, then move onto consulting or lobbying for Raytheon for a cool six figures. Meanwhile we sink billions into blowing up weddings.

Did these officers have good intentions and get caught up in magical thinking? Hell no, they actively lied and protected their own careers.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:37

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

Jaxyon posted:

If the US didn't care about women, why are we using our vast influence and wealth to force the Saudi's to make their country the feminist utopia it is today, after decades of work?

I bet nobody thought of that.

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/913068407133736961?lang=en

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:37

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

CommieGIR posted:

Truer words have not been spoken Jaxyon.

Also:

https://twitter.com/justinpodur/status/1427328916021252097?s=20
300% increase in 2019.

Yeah as hosed up as the consequences will be, it sure seems like an utterly unambiguously good thing that the US is not still in afghanistan making things worse

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:45

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

By the way, I just looked up that Lisa Maddox person who got quoted by the Times at the end of their intelligence warnings piece from today saying "this doesn't surprise me," and she's been working as a Family History Researcher since 2017.

https://familyhistoryintelligence.com/

Way to Monday Morning Quarterback, Lisa. Or you just blew your cover.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:48

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

CommieGIR posted:

I mean, we already stabbed the Afghan government the back in negotiating this entire Peace treaty. While they would've likely never been ready, Pompeo and Trump cut them out entirely from the negotiating process, and at that point they were basically ready to cut and run because they knew the US didn't give a crap about them anymore.

Oh, for sure, lovely things had already been done but kicking your allies when they are down is in bad taste and people outside the US will surely take notice.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:49

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

The US' lengthy history of disloyal towards our puppets is probably why the only puppets we can get our hands on anymore are all obvious kleptocrats and cowards.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:53

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

fool of sound posted:

The US' lengthy history of disloyal towards our puppets is probably why the only puppets we can get our hands on anymore are all obvious kleptocrats and cowards.

this is the part i dont get about people saying this will surely be the time when the world realizes how unidirectionally transactional the US is with its various partners internationally

Like yeah, that's the US' thing and has been for ages and it's only compounded by control and priorities of the country seesawing around every 4-8 years.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:56

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Not to mention nearly all the wars we got involved in post World War 2 were either us stabbing previous allies in the back (Ho Chi Minh) or being stabbed in the back and abandoned by our own allies (Vietnam War/French)

# ? Aug 17, 2021 18:59

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

fool of sound posted:

The US' lengthy history of disloyal towards our puppets is probably why the only puppets we can get our hands on anymore are all obvious kleptocrats and cowards.

Please do not disrespect the YPG again.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:02

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Oh good there's a defense chart for this

https://twitter.com/DefenseCharts/status/1427637086581035015?s=20

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:02

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Anyone arguing over literacy rates and the like has already bought into the insane premise that it's our military's job to educate the people of Afghanistan. Once you go down that road and start acting like tweaking this or that input is going to meaningfully change things you've already gotten yourself so thoroughly lost that there's little hope of finding the fundamental truths. Here are a few:

-We spent $2 trillion, killed tens of thousands of people, and maimed hundreds of thousands more to make this happen. That money could have done more good for more people at home, every dollar spent here is something like 100x more effective than a dollar given to corrupt warlords and shady international contractors.

-Any "good" we did in Afghanistan is temporary, we did not and could not fundamentally alter the baseline conditions in the country. This has been a consistent story for foreign powers loving around in Afghanistan for centuries.

-We initially invaded Afghanistan because a Saudi Arabian conspired to attack our country, not because we wanted to build big, beautiful schools there. He was not even in Afghanistan when we got there. Of course, Saudi Arabia remains a "key regional ally" despite chopping up journalists and broadly treating women like chattel.

Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Aug 17, 2021

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:03

Peepers: Mar 11, 2005; Well, I'm a ghost. I scare people. It's all very important, I assure you.

VitalSigns posted:

It's at least a realistic enough possibility that everyone understands why collaborators were at the Kabul airport trying to get out rather than betting their life on the Taliban's promise of amnesty (well that and the Taliban can't mind control the whole country so even if they don't kill you, depending on what you did for the Americans the friends and relatives of the people you sold out to your former imperial masters might take violence into their own hands)

This is despicable.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:03

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Mr. Peepers posted:

This is despicable.

Gonna be clear: Then address his points, despicable though they may be. If its a bad post, report it. Knock it off with these one liner "That's an awful take" trash. You can't change anyone's mind or opinions with those response.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:06

Al-Saqr: Nov 11, 2007; One Day I Will Return To Your Side.

https://twitter.com/natsecjeff/status/1427691254238810113?s=21

https://twitter.com/natsecjeff/status/1427691845287649285?s=21

https://twitter.com/nihadjariri/status/1427675928759578630?s=21

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:11

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

I really hope the Taliban genuinely aren't going to turn back into the nightmare pre-9/11 version. They seem way more pragmatic so far, and if that sticks it's a way better outcome than could have been expected. Not saying it makes the whole thing worthwhile or any feel good bullshit, but it would be an improvement for sure.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:13

Cranappleberry: Jan 27, 2009

Mr. Peepers posted:

This is despicable.

Regardless of whether they are desperate people the US took advantage of or really bad people we used who lied, stole, killed, bribed, raped and etc, the Taliban and others are going to look at them as collaborators.

Vox Nihili posted:

-We initially invaded Afghanistan because a Saudi Arabian conspired to attack our country, not because we wanted to build big, beautiful schools there. He was not even in Afghanistan when we got there. Of course, Saudi Arabia remains a "key regional ally" despite chopping up journalists and broadly treating women like chattel.

I agree with everything you said. But I mentioned early in the thread about how Bin Laden was *allegedly* spotted at Tora Bora and the US failed to capture him for one reason or another before his escape to Pakistan.

Could you elaborate on "not even in Afghanistan when we got there"? Because I'd like to know more.

Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Aug 17, 2021

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:16

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Herstory Begins Now posted:

this is the part i dont get about people saying this will surely be the time when the world realizes how unidirectionally transactional the US is with its various partners internationally

It's because it's a highly visible event. You don't have the Taliban blitzkrieging their way back into power every day, specially not after the US having almost 20 years to prepare for the possibility. Most people are not really into geopolitics and while wary, there are plenty that still believe that the US is both capable acting in good faith. After this giant shitshow it's going to be hard for them to continue to believe so.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:23

Canned Sunshine: Nov 20, 2005; CAUTION: POST QUALITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

CommieGIR posted:

Gonna be clear: Then address his points, despicable though they may be. If its a bad post, report it. Knock it off with these one liner "That's an awful take" trash. You can't change anyone's mind or opinions with those response.

Personally, I get the point that he is making and I don't disagree with the underlying issues most of the time, but I also think he needs to tone down the inhumane comparative language being used at times to describe individuals who may or may not have happily involved themselves in the occupation, especially when I constantly see and hear the term "collaborator" being used to describe pretty much anyone who ever had any involvement with non-Afghan forces (that janitor cleaning up American piss and poo poo in the bathroom? Collaborator!), as well as terms like "masters", etc., it's seemingly making a not-so-subtle reference to slavery, etc.

There are millions of Afghans who remember life under the 1996-2001 Taliban well enough, and I would assume a not-insignificant amount do not wish to experience any life under the Taliban again, regardless of what they're currently saying or doing. So to simply assume that everyone rushing the airport and trying to get on flights out, is a collaborator/traitor, etc., seems wrong, and to then use disparaging language on said individuals, just seems to serve no purpose than to also act as a slight troll on other posters in order to foster anger/resentment and push the argument further.

Plus, it gets tiring to constantly see people posting "You should take the Taliban at their word!", but why should we? I'm not saying this in terms of the US staying in Afghanistan, I'm glad we are getting out. But to me, it's no different than the next time the US tries to intervene, and claims it's doing it for <x> reason. Should we then take the US at its word that the reason is the honest truth, regardless of past actions?

Someone a few pages back linked a report from a European journalist regarding life in areas that the Taliban is acting as a shadow government, and while some of it definitely indicated improvements relative to the 1996-2001 Taliban, there are still familiar themes popping up that make me question their long-term goals, such as the fact that none of the Taliban-controlled areas had female secondary schools, and the ones that existed pre-Taliban control, had effectively been shut down. This, as the Taliban are claiming they'll allow women to attend secondary school.

So it just seems like there have been quite a few bad faith arguments being presented that were largely meant to continue an argumentative debate instead of genuine openminded discussion, and it gets tiresome to see those people never probated for their disingenous posting.

Canned Sunshine fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Aug 17, 2021

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:26

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah sure. If you're going to go back decades you can also bring up US atrocities in Latin America and say that since they have a history of mass murder nothing they say can ever be trusted again. If we're not going to have a double standard here, we at least have to recognize that organizations and governments aren't automatically the same as they were decades ago.

Hah, well, I'd argue that with respect to foreign policy, the United States of 1996 is not very different from the United States of 2021, so no double standard here.

The thing is, "how good the US is," "how good the US-backed government of Afghanistan was," and "how good the Taliban is" are separate points of discussion. It's tiresome when arguments about how the Taliban sucks become arguments about the pros and cons of US intervention; I don't think we should have been there in the first place even though the Taliban was clearly trash, and I don't think there was any option other than ceding control to them now.

Mr. Peepers posted:

This is despicable.

I genuinely don't get why you think so. [edit: I guess it was the assumption that the word "collaborator" has negative connotations? That's just plain incorrect.]

BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Aug 17, 2021

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:33

Canned Sunshine: Nov 20, 2005; CAUTION: POST QUALITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

I genuinely don't get why you think so. [edit: I guess it was the assumption that the word "collaborator" has negative connotations? That's just plain incorrect.]

The word "collaborator" historically does have negative connotations?

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:47

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Cranappleberry posted:

I agree with everything you said. But I mentioned early in the thread about how Bin Laden was *allegedly* spotted at Tora Bora and the US failed to capture him for one reason or another before his escape to Pakistan.

Could you elaborate on "not even in Afghanistan when we got there"? Because I'd like to know more.

The battle of Tora Bora was during the very opening stages of the US invasion. Per General Tommy Franks in 2004, "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora.im December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time."

Bin Laden was, of course, eventually tracked down in Pakistan. And Tora Bora is right on the border with Pakistan. So either he was getting out of dodge as the US attacked and was gone for 99.9% of the occupation or he was already gone when we got there.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 19:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 11:14

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

I was all for the murk and dump policy in 2011, but just from a historical perspective if nothing else I wish they'd interrogated bin Laden like they did with Saddam before his trial so maybe we'd have answers to some of these questions.

# ? Aug 17, 2021 20:00

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Fall of Afghanistan - What does shipping cost if I'm a Blackwater Prime subscriber?

«‹›48 »