|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1428469075353784326 https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1428490189534646272 apparently not.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1428490189534646272 why have them sign the loan anyway? i know i wouldn't feel great about a pinkie promise regarding this
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:why have them sign the loan anyway? i know i wouldn't feel great about a pinkie promise regarding this because its private-public partnership that probably pays for emergency flights out for American citizens and under normal circumstances where its probably random folks. its usually not a massive air flights evacuating a war we lost. also the feds will pay them back plus more. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Aug 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
When the document started out with "there are commercial flights still being operated but seats are running low, so in that case here's another option", it probably should have clued people in that maybe the document was a bit out of date.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Yeah not after the new Rambo gets their asses. Drag + mouseclick to select all your A10s then right click on the taliban base bing bong so simple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
Re: the US hardware that fell into Taliban hands - How big a problem is this in reality? I thought military vehicles (especially aircraft) required *constant* maintenance and an enormous supply chain to keep them running reliably. Without enormous amounts of cash, trained full-time crews, and magical access to the proper supply channels, how are these vehicles anything but white elephants? The best they could hope for is committing a ton of human resources to scavenging parts between vehicles for an ever-shrinking fleet as these vehicles wear out, break, and rust. Unless I'm missing something, the best use they could hope for with any of this is one-time use, or ops where it doesn't matter if the vehicle runs or not. Or "creative repurposing" of things like armor panels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
HolHorsejob posted:Re: the US hardware that fell into Taliban hands - How big a problem is this in reality? I thought military vehicles (especially aircraft) required *constant* maintenance and an enormous supply chain to keep them running reliably. Without enormous amounts of cash, trained full-time crews, and magical access to the proper supply channels, how are these vehicles anything but white elephants? The best they could hope for is committing a ton of human resources to scavenging parts between vehicles for an ever-shrinking fleet as these vehicles wear out, break, and rust. The other option is they spend a ton of time and effort to reverse engineer the things, figure out how they work and start developing their own improved models.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
nelson posted:The other option is they spend a ton of time and effort to reverse engineer the things, figure out how they work and start developing their own improved models. Ah right, I forgot about the Taliban's formidable mechanical engineering division
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:51
|
|
|
aircraft need a certain amount of care, for sure, but military Humvee's or even APC's? They'll never be in perfect shape after a few sortees but anything that could go wrong can be jury-rigged to an extent, if you've got the knowhow. i figure the taliban has some dudes who can keep their trucks moving, take apart enough engines and the knowledge starts to come together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:53
|
|
|
HolHorsejob posted:Re: the US hardware that fell into Taliban hands - How big a problem is this in reality? I thought military vehicles (especially aircraft) required *constant* maintenance and an enormous supply chain to keep them running reliably. Without enormous amounts of cash, trained full-time crews, and magical access to the proper supply channels, how are these vehicles anything but white elephants? The best they could hope for is committing a ton of human resources to scavenging parts between vehicles for an ever-shrinking fleet as these vehicles wear out, break, and rust. A lot of it will probably be abandoned but if even a third of it is kept running that's a pretty substantial boon to the Taliban. Not disastrous, they're not going to be launching a blitzkrieg column of tanks into Tehran or Uzbekistan, and probably wouldn't do much against the US military if we tried to full on invade again, but a major lol for the US government nonetheless
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:56
|
|
|
I assume the only value the Taliban is getting out of those vehicles, especially the airplanes, is selling them, which is plenty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 05:01
|
|
|
Just the optics of it are humiliating enough for the hegemon. Of more significance is any SIGINT/ELINT gear US mil left behind, and they've got a trio of B-52s blowing that poo poo up alongside probably airframes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Just the optics of it are humiliating enough for the hegemon. Of more significance is any SIGINT/ELINT gear US mil left behind, and they've got a trio of B-52s blowing that poo poo up alongside probably airframes. I know they never seem to take away what they should be, but I thought the equipment the Taliban got is the ANA's equipment and not actually US military stuff. If they left SIGINT/ELINT stuff behind without trashing it, that's especially sloppy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
Almost everything left behind is older stuff that the Russians and Chinese have had copies of for years. I say "almost" because there's bound to be at least one fuckup where they should have a company field police a couple of acres looking for something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 05:47
|
|
|
How are u posted:Considering how bellicose, aggressive, and destabilizing Putin and Xi have become over the last decade, I can say I'm glad we still have them. Perhaps, a little down the line, our withdrawl from Afghanistan will truly allow us to refocus on building a strong coalition to push back on that sort of aggression (+ genocide, in the CCP's case). loving Americans man....
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:loving Americans man.... At least they're pivoting to warmongering against countries kinda their own size instead of more defenseless post-colonial states. Or maybe that's actually a bad thing for the world since the countries they want to war on now have nukes. Anyway, in other news, the American media couldn't keep up the facade of caring about Afganistan because of women and LGBTQ rights for even a week https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1428132809462460420
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
HolHorsejob posted:Re: the US hardware that fell into Taliban hands - How big a problem is this in reality? I thought military vehicles (especially aircraft) required *constant* maintenance and an enormous supply chain to keep them running reliably. Without enormous amounts of cash, trained full-time crews, and magical access to the proper supply channels, how are these vehicles anything but white elephants? The best they could hope for is committing a ton of human resources to scavenging parts between vehicles for an ever-shrinking fleet as these vehicles wear out, break, and rust. Best case scenario is you get something like Iran and how they've managed to keep F-4 and F-14's flying for decades without being able to easily obtain spare parts and upgrades from their manufacturers. I don't foresee this being the case but time will tell. The reality is stuff like Humvees can be kept running with bubble gum and duct tape but airframes and anything that requires a lot of maintenance (so tracked vehicles) will not last long without wrench time and spare parts. Some of the stuff that's been left there are easier to source parts for from non-NATO countries but a lot of it still require specialized mechanics that know what they're working with. Which again, you can source from countries other than the U.S. for some of, but not all of. I think the more likely scenario is they keep a lot of the easier to maintain/mothball stuff and the rest either gets sold off or left to rust. There was one goober speculating that the fancy stealth Blackhawk everyone knows from the Bin Laden raid that was possibly spotted over Kabul last week was a huge breach and now the Taliban had one...problem is, we rarely if ever give that kind of poo poo away to five eyes countries without them swearing up and down they will check with us first before combat deploying it, so there's no way in hell we gave one to the ANA let alone left one behind. VitalSigns posted:Anyway, in other news, the American media couldn't keep up the facade of caring about Afganistan because of women and LGBTQ rights for even a week I will say it's kinda funny to watch cable news throw poo poo at the wall and see what sticks about why we should stay/go back in and the Biden Admin thus far has been like "nah". Usually feels like we see this poo poo in the run up to an invasion that the admin has been loudly calling for for months on end. Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Aug 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:At least they're pivoting to warmongering against countries kinda their own size instead of more defenseless post-colonial states. The headline and opening paragraph make the article sounds worse than it is, which is largely about the challenges faced in industrializing Afghanistan, in response to noise about China possibly investing in the country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:loving Americans man.... My god, what an amazing post that is. In this thread dedicated to the ignominious end of one of the two decade+ wars America started this century, to call other countries "bellicose, aggressive, and destabilizing" is astounding. And that's not even mentioning our non-military attempts to destabilize the rest of the world, like backing the coup in Honduras and the attempted coup in Venezuela. And breaking the nuclear treaty with Iran. America is undeniably the most bellicose, aggressive, and destabilizing country in the world, and the fact that that post is a good representation of the thoughts of a lot of people in American foreign policy circles is proof. Hey, maybe we spent twenty years occupying and bombing a foreign country for what is now undeniably absolutely no reason, but at least the fact that it's over means we can start focusing on gearing up for a different war because the actions of another country are simply unacceptable. Absolutely zero lessons learned, just endless bloodthirsty warmongering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The headline and opening paragraph make the article sounds worse than it is, which is largely about the challenges faced in industrializing Afghanistan, in response to noise about China possibly investing in the country. I think it's pretty ambiguous since they're doing the "hmm hmm the Taliban won't be able to exploit these resources and it's unacceptable for China to it" thing (what are we left with, getting rid of the Taliban I guess???), maybe it's not intended that way and was supposed to be neutral but if so it's undercut pretty badly by the headline saying they're sitting on it and the world "needs" it. Maybe a different author wrote the headline and the editor approved it, but in that case that's still a problem with the American media. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Aug 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:41
|
|
|
This Atlantic piece came up in C-Spam and I just wanted to bitch about it here. Also, I wanted to see what kinds of numbers we were talking about as far as propping the regime. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/08/biden-afghanistan-midterms/619838/ quote:Biden’s handling of the biggest foreign-policy crisis on his watch to date is unfolding on two tracks: short- and long-term. In recent days, the White House has privately sent talking points to supporters that sought to blunt the ferocious backlash over the Taliban victory by deflecting responsibility onto a useful target. On his way out the door, Donald Trump left Biden with two bad choices: “indefinite war in Afghanistan” or a troop drawdown and potential Taliban victory, a White House communications aide wrote in an email obtained by The Atlantic. That binary formulation ignores all the other options that were open to Biden: at minimum, leaving sufficient troops in place so that a fleeing Afghan didn’t perish inside the wheel well of a departing plane. Not all Democratic partisans are sold on the idea that Trump boxed in Biden when he negotiated a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan set for this spring. After taking office, Biden quickly recommitted to the Paris climate accord and the Iranian nuclear deal that Trump had abandoned. “This one they chose not to reverse,” Donna Brazile, a former Democratic National Committee chair, told me. “If you don’t reverse it, you own it.” Aside from wondering why anyone gives a poo poo what Donna Brazile thinks, I'm also annoyed at how pieces like this never go into the numbers of what it would have taken to prop the regime up. What would have been "sufficient" troops? Especially given how the ANA ended up performing, how would "sufficient" numbers not have been just a gateway to keeping the war going on forever and ever and ever? No one evacuates when the government is propped up and it's just the old status quo lasting forever. I guess Biden could have just torn up the peace deal, but wouldn't that have just made US soldiers fair game targets again? VitalSigns posted:I think it's pretty ambiguous since they're doing the "hmm hmm the Taliban won't be able to exploit these resources and it's unacceptable for China to it" thing, maybe that's neutral but if so it's undercut pretty badly by the headline saying they're sitting on it and the world "needs" it. I guess this is standard journalistic practice, but CNN has been putting all the juicy warmongering points in the headlines and in the beginning of the stories and then only putting dissenting/balancing views near the end. I guess you get everything you want that way because the points in the beginning and the headlines are more likely to stick in the readers' minds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:41
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:
Yeah it's pretty great, although what choice did Biden have really. Break the agreement with the Taliban and lose in a long bloody humiliating defeat? Tell the American people we have to do another surge and put 100,000 troops back in? Just go mask off and nuke cities until Afghanistan surrenders? The media can clamor for war all they want because they face no consequences for military defeat (they benefit either way, war sells papers), but Biden has to live in the reality that it just isn't politically viable to drag out a pointless rudderless forever war just to enrich a few thousand private individuals. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Aug 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
The "sufficient numbers" also tends to be around 4000 in the media which would be fine if the Taliban chose to continue not targeting American personnel and not advancing into Afgan cities but the only reason they had stopped was because of Trump's deal to pull out. There was no propping up the Afgan government against the Taliban without sending in a lot more troops and dropping a lot more bombs for the next 40 years. Would have been a waste of money and blood. https://twitter.com/DefenseBaron/status/1428712149174587398 Thom12255 fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Aug 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:
I mean at least it's honest but I figured they'd keep the humanitarian nation-building charade going a little longer. But maybe that's impossible now that the president had a press conference to tell us the war was never about that in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Generally the authors of articles, including of op-eds, don’t write the headlines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah okay, it's just shocking that this is the pro-war argument they're going with out of all the ones out there. I've been pretty pissed about it too. I think they've been throwing everything out there. The women's rights and "what about our allies?" angles seems to be more used from what I see, but I think the media is just everything they can out there to try to test the popular support for a pullout and then get MORE stories.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
Smeef posted:Generally the authors of articles, including of op-eds, don’t write the headlines. Yeah i know my criticism is directed toward the organization that employs whoever did, even if the author is just writing didactically about how screwed Afghanistan is as long as the Taliban are in charge*, the headline makes the organization's stance pretty clear *wink
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I've been pretty pissed about it too. I think they've been throwing everything out there. The women's rights and "what about our allies?" angles seems to be more used from what I see, but I think the media is just everything they can out there to try to test the popular support for a pullout and then get MORE stories. The what about the women thing does at least resonate with some people because they are empathetic. My partner and I talked about the return of the Taliban and she thinks the US Government should of done more for these women and sure, yes but what was to be done now? We had our chances to negotiate a power sharing agreement and what could potentially happen to these women is awful, horrible. But ultimately, its untenable for the US to be involved. I guess I tend to break from the thread is that I think Andrea Mitchell's reaction is genuine, I don't think its some ploy for ratings nor do they want to continue some forever war. It just makes them feel powerless and they want to do something but...what's to be done?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:The what about the women thing does at least resonate with some people because they are empathetic. My partner and I talked about the return of the Taliban and she thinks the US Government should of done more for these women and sure, yes but what was to be done now? We had our chances to negotiate a power sharing agreement and what could potentially happen to these women is awful, horrible. But ultimately, its untenable for the US to be involved. Any media outlet that claims to care about the women and isn't hounding the Biden administration to do this is lying. E: also note whether those journalists' opinions are consistent when it comes to say our relationship with Saudi Arabia
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
lol iran and the Taliban are now best buds what a world https://twitter.com/worldonalert/status/1428733181281415171?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Offer any Afghan who wants it a paid flight and permanent residency in the US I mean, while I agree yes that is one solution and one I agree with, upending ones life to leave the only home they have known can also be callous to. This is far afield of the thread obviously but people are connected to their homes and culture. Not all women have the resources to get out, ect. But yah, sure use VAWA to expand the U-Visa program to help women across the world to flee violent oppression. Totally on board.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
wtf those vehicles were supposed to go to our boys in blue to patrol American streets for homegrown domestic terrorists
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I mean, while I agree yes that is one solution and one I agree with, upending ones life to leave the only home they have known can also be callous to. This is far afield of the thread obviously but people are connected to their homes and culture. Not all women have the resources to get out, ect. I'm sure a lot of women would prefer to come here rather than have the US classify their husband and sons as terrorists and drop a jdam on their house too. The idea that forever war is automatically better for every woman in Afghanistan is extremely questionable to put it mildly. But anyway the criticism that unlimited immigration isn't enough is meaningless when most of the media aren't demanding it in the first place. The resources wouldn't be a problem if the US cared about women, we already spent almost $100,000 for every man women and child in Afghanistan on bombing them, I think we could afford to relocate every single person who wants it As well the logic that accepting refugees isn't good enough and empathy requires invading their home countries instead escapes me. Why does that apply only to Afghanistan? Do we have to invade half the world now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:lol iran and the Taliban are now best buds what a world Everyone in the region wants normalized relations with a stable Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mattgallagher0/status/1428684340377096192?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JHWeissmann/status/1428538492745916420 https://twitter.com/JHWeissmann/status/1428539067210338306 biden basicaly told the Pro war blob to get hosed when they try to use women's issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Is he telling the truth, does "economic pressure" (ie sanctions) help women? The terrorism of telling women they can't buy food or medicine from abroad unless they change their government is helping them somehow? When Madeleine Albright said sanctions on Iraq would be worth it even if they killed a million children, that was pro-women? How many women are really regulars on r/childfree anyway VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Aug 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Ugh. If Doha is at full capacity, where else can the planes fly? Where are other nearby US/NATO military bases? I guess assuming other NATO countries are willing to take people in is a stretch... VitalSigns posted:Is he telling the truth, does "economic pressure" (ie sanctions) help women? The terrorism of telling women they can't buy food or medicine from abroad unless they change their government is helping them somehow? Maybe greed and wanting economic development and investment helps push leaders to moderate a bit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Maybe greed and wanting economic development and investment helps push leaders to moderate a bit? Do sanctions even affect leaders' lifestyle, Saddam seemed to live pretty well under the sanctions regime that killed horrific numbers of Iraqis. When have sanctions changed a country's treatment of women. And is that even the goal, when is Biden putting sanctions on our buddy Saudi Arabia?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Looks like Europe is facing reality:- https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1428752186855632900?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 17:56
|
|