US Election November 5th

[John Brown]

The thing is he's not wrong...the Nation cannot afford to keep allowing immigration to flourish as it has been doing or are you suggesting it can? Even the European Union is taking steps to address what Farage has been saying for years.
Where is the infrastructure to cater for for the number of migrants coming here? There isn't a fully functioning infrastructure to deal with those living here let alone incomers.
That's the problem with left wing economics it doesn't embrace reality.

For starters Reeves could have saved the country a fair bit yesterday just by cutting immigrant accommodation down to one or two star hotels...why 3 or 4 star? If they're fleeing persecution as they claim then they would be grateful for even a tent let alone 3 or 4 star accommodation. I'd rather that money saved went into the pockets of the poorest already living here.

As for the poster...the only people who would associate that poster with Nazi's propaganda are your typical left wingers who don't appear to live in the real world.
Whether or you agree or disagree the numbers tell us one thing, the UK's population can't keep growing at the rate it is without everyone becoming poorer and if that's what you want fine but don't expect others to agree with your destructive thinking.

To quote Friedrich Hayek economist and winner of the Nobel Prize..."If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists"...and looking at the nonsense posted on here never a truer word was spoken.

"If all the economists in the world were laid end-to-end, they still wouldn't reach a consensus".

 

[Blackswanwood]

Put simply - the timescale for the withdrawal that was agreed by Trump was fundamentally unachievable.

If anyone is interested there is a summary of the dates and how the decisions were arrived at here that I found when the point first came up..

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/US-Withdrawal-from-Afghanistan.pdf

 

[Jake]

You repeatedly refer to the peace agreement between the US and the Taliban as a surrender agreement, as I believe have others on this thread... To suggest the US and their allies simply surrendered is not accurate and possibly misleading.

Sorry that's not my phrase, it's the description given to it by General McMaster, his (Trump's) former head of national security.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/20/trump-peace-deal-taliban/

 

[NickDReed]

Sorry that's not my phrase, it's the description given to it by General McMaster, his (Trump's) former head of national security.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/20/trump-peace-deal-taliban/

Given their history the use of the language makes sense, I would still stand by my point that it is a misleading way to represent the agreement.

 

[TRITON]

"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists"..

It's near meaningless. It's something said by people who don't like socialism. Usually means they don't understand it.
But in reality it is impossible to evaluate without putting it into proper context, i.e. in what settings it's applied and what kind of socialism they're talking about. As a blanket statement, it's just nonsense.

Many socialists, most notably Marx, spoke of economics with knowledge and authority. Marx made reference to the boom and bust cycles we have today for example.

 

[mcostello]

Stil does not make Him right.

 

[woodieallen]

I'm not remotely interested in being covered in glory...I simply try to add balance to the left tilted views of some posters and thought the investment opportunity would appeal to their level of intellect.

Intellect ? An oxymoron, surely.

 

[Jake]

Given their history the use of the language makes sense, I would still stand by my point that it is a misleading way to represent the agreement.

What do you mean by "their history"? Are you the type that assumes someone like McMaster will invent stuff for personal beef reasons because he criticises Trump?

 

[Jake]

ey_tony said: I'm not remotely interested in being covered in glory...I simply try to add balance to the left tilted views of some posters and thought the investment opportunity would appeal to their level of intellect.
Intellect ? An oxymoron, surely.

That's not an oxymoron even if we credit Tony with having any point. Your own post is closer but still not there.

 

[Britman]

US politics and particularly the presidential elections are fun to follow.
People as so absolutely partisan that they are blind, the media bias is so utterly in your face it embarrassing.

What's sad is no one seems to realise that neither side give zero ***** about them.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

My recollection of the exit from Afghanistan - we were assured the Afghan army, having been trained and equipped by the west would be able to maintain order.

It is not clear whether this was a smokescreen intended to make withdrawal politically "palatable" - did the US expect the army to collapse in just a few weeks as the Taliban advanced.

More fundamental - I struggle to think of major conflicts over the last 70 years involving the West and in particular the US that have been successful in "righting a wrong" - evidenced by a fundamental long term change in circumstances.

Forays into the Middle East - Iraq, Afghanistan are demonstrable failures which have destabilised the region - in particular Syria. Vietnam ended in retreat and defeat. North Korea still a rogue state. Any other major operations I have missed?

Successes - the US managed to invade Grenada, UK won back and retained the Falklands. Former republic of Yugoslavia had some hands on involvement of US and UK but mainly air support.

The lesson - perhaps power through military means is no longer the best option. Support - weapons and intelligence - for Ukraine is right, active involvement on the ground would be an indefinite commitment with no certainty of success.

What has this to do with Trump/Biden - dialogue and economic power may be far more effective than conventional military solutions. China, now the equal of US in global reach, have achieved success substantially through economic means - trade, building infrastructure etc etc.

Trump (IMHO a reprehensible individual) seems able to maintain a dialogue with Putin, Kim, etc - possibly even an Ayatollah! Subtlety is not one of his strengths - success in resolving current conflicts may benefit from the simplistic and direct where conventional politics fails.

 

[TRITON]

I find it strange the US left so much important equipment behind, and they had 18 months before leaving to arrange its removal.

The Taliban are sworn enemies of ISIS, and all that equipment leaves them in a strong position militarily.

 

[NickDReed]

What do you mean by "their history"? Are you the type that assumes someone like McMaster will invent stuff for personal beef reasons because he criticises Trump?

I'm not suggesting anyone is inventing anything. I have no idea what Gen Mcmaster is "like", I can't say our paths have ever crossed.

If you look at their history it's fairly clear that they have had a strained relationship, so it would be unsurprising if they didn't speak of each other in glowing terms. So, in that context it is unsurprising that someone might use the term 'surrender' which is likely to be read or heard by a recipient as more regressive or negative than 'peace agreement' which is likely to be read or heard as a more progressive or positive action.

It was purely a comment on how words are used and reasons people might use them in certain ways.

 

[NickDReed]

I find it strange the US left so much important equipment behind, and they had 18 months before leaving to arrange its removal.

The Taliban are sworn enemies of ISIS, and all that equipment leaves them in a strong position militarily.

Yes, agreed. It seems that would allow a significant amount of time to move a significant amount of it. Trump is quoted as stating he was advised by the military it's was cheaper to leave it. Whether that is the actual reason though would be up for debate. I believe certain equipment was disabled or destroyed but clearly there was a significant amount of usable stuff left as a result of the withdrawal.

There was also the significant amount of equipment that the US provided for the afghan army (as you would expect) that was abandoned by the afghan army that will have been acquired by the Taliban.

It seems reasonable to state that the decision making and delivery of the withdrawal was an utter calamity.

 

[Fergie 307]

I'm not sure how your point holds water. You're stating that the Biden administration were presented with a situation when to took power where they were undermanned in Afghanistan, they chose to stay there longer and allow the Taliban and their allies more time to exploit their vulnerability? I'm not a military strategist, but that doesn't sound like a great plan, nor does it sound like a decision made by the previous US administration.

I find the language used around this interesting. You repeatedly refer to the peace agreement between the US and the Taliban as a surrender agreement, as I believe have others on this thread. The US and allies had occupied Afghanistan for 20 years and no sustainable regime had been successfully installed, and looking to the future it was not likely that there would be one coming down the line. Appetite for continued occupation had long since diminished within the populations of the US and their allies. The broad consensus at the time was that the continued occupation/war in Afghanistan had to end at some point. Therefore the peace agreement was drawn up and agreed by the US, their allies, the UN security council and the Taliban agreeing to a positive future relationship the an Afghan government that would be formed through internal Afghan negotiation.

To suggest the US and their allies simply surrendered is not accurate and possibly misleading.

A discussion on whether there should have been an occupation in the first place, or whether there should have been certain levels of trust between those negotiating the peace agreement is a different conversation. An agreement was made, it turned out that neither the US or the Taliban stuck to all the aspects of the agreement. Any deal agreed was only 'feckless' once either side failed to comply with the agreement, and in this case, the Biden administration moving the goal posts on withdrawal timeframes was a failure to comply with the original agreement.

I understand why people dislike Trump, I don't particularly like the man and there is plenty that can quite justifiably be levelled at him. But to misrepresent a situation in order to apportion blame or portray a narrative that is not accurate only weakens the validity of accurate information where blame can appropriately be apportioned.

I think the issue was with the comment about not even being able to beat a bunch of third world people etc.
I took that to be a criticism of Biden, which I think is unfair.
If you take the view that the withdrawal amounted to a surrender, then the person waving the white flag was undoubtedly Trump rather than Biden.
Whether the surrender argument is valid is another matter, but however you want to characterise the withdrawal agreement it was Trump's doing.
Biden may have made a balls up of implementing it, but given the situation he inherited I don't think it was every going to be easy. I doubt that Trump would have handled it significantly better.
All parties, including ourselves, were wrong footed by the speed with which it all went pear shaped.