US Election November 5th

[NickDReed]

I was responding to Spectric saying Biden was responsible for a cowardly surrender in Afghanistan and that Harris would be no better.

Do you think my response was more accurate or less accurate than Spectric's version of events (setting aside niggly nuances and just going binary), which is closer to the truth of it?

I don't believe either is accurate and unlike gender, life is not binary but full of nuance.

Nether is close to the truth because the ignore all the nuance. And by ignoring the nuance you skip over too many of the important facts. That, in essence is the entire point of my posts.

 

[Stuart M]

That's not what

I said to suggest blame can or should only be apportioned to one administration on this topic is misleading.

Nothing about percentages or fairness so I'm unclear where you've got that from.

If you're going to apportion blame between multiple parties, then how are you going to do it other than on a percentage basis?

I know you didn't mention percentages - that's the reason I asked the question.

Can you advice how much blame we can apportion to Trump, as a percentage? Or do we just say "we can't blame Trump for everything", and just hope nobody questions the methodology for concluding that?

 

[NickDReed]

If you're going to apportion blame between multiple parties, then how are you going to do it other than on a percentage basis?

I know you didn't mention percentages - that's the reason I asked the question.

Can you advice how much blame we can apportion to Trump, as a percentage? Or do we just say "we can't blame Trump for everything", and just hope nobody questions the methodology for concluding that?

Well if you want to work out the percentage of responsibility that arises for each occurrence that happened from commencing negotiating a peace deal and the last boot leaving the ground, feel free. I certainly have no inclination to, or feel there is anything significant to gain from it.

 

[Jake]

I don't believe either is accurate and unlike gender, life is not binary but full of nuance.

Nether is close to the truth because the ignore all the nuance. And by ignoring the nuance you skip over too many of the important facts. That, in essence is the entire point of my posts.

Pathetic avoidance. Balance falls which side?

 

[Jake]

Surrender often results in peace agreements, but peace agreements are not always a result of a surrender. It is an important distinction to make.

That's not what you said though. You said it was a peace agreement so calling it a surrender agreement was wrong (so as to, to sew a few of your threads together, justify your insinuation that a distinguished general with an honourable service record (and an impressive leadership record including in Trump's own administration) like McMaster is a liar because of some unspecified personal animus.

 

[woodieallen]

I didn't know you could subtly misunderstand a word

You still don't get it but never mind.

 

[NickDReed]

That's not what you said though. You said it was a peace agreement so calling it a surrender agreement was wrong (so as to, to sew a few of your threads together, justify your insinuation that a distinguished general with an honourable service record (and an impressive leadership record including in Trump's own administration) like McMaster is a liar because of some unspecified personal animus.

Attached.

It is literally called an "agreement to bring peace..." to refer to it as a surrender agreement is inaccurate, and to my mind a distinguished general would likely understand the difference in resolution through peaceful negotiations, and surrender which generally implies a defeat. The reality of Afghanistan is the US and their allies could have occupied the country indefinitely, however the was no appetite for this. I doubt military minded individuals would refer to that as defeat ordinarily.

Ive not said he's a liar, I've said his use of the word surrender to describe the agreement would not present the attached document as a resolution through peaceful negotiation.

 

[Jake]

Attached.

It is literally called an "agreement to bring peace..." to refer to it as a surrender agreement is inaccurate, and to my mind a distinguished general would likely understand the difference in resolution through peaceful negotiations, and surrender which generally implies a defeat. The reality of Afghanistan is the US and their allies could have occupied the country indefinitely, however the was no appetite for this. I doubt military minded individuals would refer to that as defeat ordinarily.

Ive not said he's a liar, I've said his use of the word surrender to describe the agreement would not present the attached document as a resolution through peaceful negotiation.

Wibble. Answer the question.

 

[NickDReed]

Pathetic avoidance. Balance falls which side?

Trump administration negotiated a deal, and from what I can establish delivered on that deal while still in power.

If you want to argue the contents of that deal and decide that any decision made after the deal and subsequent consequences are solely attributed to the negotiating of the deal. Then you will find the Trump administration solely responsible for all consequences.

On taking over power the Biden administration made a series of what could only be seen as questionable decisions which played a significant part in the botched exit from the country. Notably delaying the exit from May 2021 to Sept 11th 2021, for what appear to be an entirely symbolic and not strategic reason. This allowed hostile forces additional time to organise and advance leading to an extraordinarily hasty exit in August 2021.

If you believe those decisions had significant repercussions, you would not be able to attribute them to the Trump administration and therefore have to apportion those consequences to the Biden administration.

I think Trump's deal was flawed, but I think Biden pooped the bed with decisions made when that administration came to power. Ultimately the Biden administration is left holding the can because they won the election and made their decisions.

 

[NickDReed]

Wibble. Answer the question.

What's the question in you post below?

That's not what you said though. You said it was a peace agreement so calling it a surrender agreement was wrong (so as to, to sew a few of your threads together, justify your insinuation that a distinguished general with an honourable service record (and an impressive leadership record including in Trump's own administration) like McMaster is a liar because of some unspecified personal animus.

 

[Blackswanwood]

It seems the retired US Generals involved were unable to say how the blame was apportioned.

Retired US generals describe chaos of Afghan exit https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68612367

Not sure what the point of keeping on arguing about it is.

 

[Jake]

Attached.

It is literally called an "agreement to bring peace..." to refer to it as a surrender agreement is inaccurate, and to my mind a distinguished general would likely understand the difference in resolution through peaceful negotiations, and surrender which generally implies a defeat. The reality of Afghanistan is the US and their allies could have occupied the country indefinitely, however the was no appetite for this. I doubt military minded individuals would refer to that as defeat ordinarily.

Ive not said he's a liar, I've said his use of the word surrender to describe the agreement would not present the attached document as a resolution through peaceful negotiation.

So you are now relying on Trump admin's title of the agreement as proof that is the reality of it. OK Nick.

 

[Jake]

I was responding to Spectric saying Biden was responsible for a cowardly surrender in Afghanistan and that Harris would be no better.

Do you think my response was more accurate or less accurate than Spectric's version of events (setting aside niggly nuances and just going binary), which is closer to the truth of it?

Answer the question Nick

 

[Jake]

Not sure what the point of keeping on arguing about it is.

The point, ultimately, is the false equivalences that Spectric set off.

 

[Jake]

They saw things and because they were different and had a different society just decided that they could not work together and the west has the same attitude to China today.


But the west had already shut the door and made there minds up, trust between them just went down hill.

Poor loves. So they were sent out of their minds by a lack of cuddles?

Do you agree Putin is a war criminal? Do yu accept that Putin's FSB poisoned UK citizens with banned nerve agents?

If not why not.

 

[Blackswanwood]

The point, ultimately, is the false equivalences that Spectric set off.

Well I’d say they were addressed many posts ago. Is there a particular form of words you need so you can let it go?

 

[Jake]

Well I’d say they were addressed many posts ago. Is there a particular form of words you need so you can let it go?

A good answer to my last two questions. Why is it your business to shut this down?

 

[Blackswanwood]

A good answer to my last two questions. Why is it your business to shut this down?

You keep going if you want.

It’s not a private conversation and anyone can join in. It’s a woodworking forum not the Oxford Union.

Just a suggestion but perhaps reread the past couple of pages and consider if you’re just picking a fight for the sake of it. It reads to me that your fundamental point has been acknowledged.

 

[Jake]

You keep going if you want.

Thank you for permission,

It’s not a private conversation and anyone can join in. It’s a woodworking forum not the Oxford Union.

Sure but I haven't tried to shut anyone down and you were trying to shut me down, Obviously you are right on the second sentence, but no idea what the rules of the Oxford Union might be or why you are referencing those.

Just a suggestion but perhaps reread the past couple of pages and consider if you’re just picking a fight for the sake of it. It reads to me that your fundamental point has been acknowledged.

That'd be cool if so, but where?

 

[NickDReed]

It seems the retired US Generals involved were unable to say how the blame was apportioned.

Retired US generals describe chaos of Afghan exit https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68612367

Not sure what the point of keeping on arguing about it is.

That article show the problem with the US Congress, there was no one there saying you must blame one, don't get caught up in nuance and details.