US Election November 5th

[Croolis]

I find it shocking that the Republican Party that was always strong on defence has become the party of running away from Ukraine and capitulating to Putin

I reckon they could stop fracking and just get all their energy by attaching magnets to Reagan's spinning corpse.

 

[Fergie 307]

I'm not sure I have seen this post, if that reference is from a post




I take the view that withdrawal from Afghanistan was long overdue as it had been clear for some time to most that there was very little to gain from remaining there. I have made my point about the use of words in a previous post so won't repeat myself and have not suggested that the peace agreement was negotiated by any other administration than the Trump one.

However, the Biden administrations decision to delay the withdrawal in order to withdraw on a date that was purely symbolic rather than tactical, and it also allowed opposing forces more time to organise and was a colossal error of judgement. So to land this as a Trump phuck up because it suits your political position is just glossing over inconvenient facts.

My point isn't that Trump is better, or would have handled things better. My point is, framing this as a Trump administration disaster that a Biden administration can absolve themselves of because it suits your political alliances or personal feelings about an individual is misleading and disingenuous.

I'm not sure I have seen this post, if that reference is from a post



I take the view that withdrawal from Afghanistan was long overdue as it had been clear for some time to most that there was very little to gain from remaining there. I have made my point about the use of words in a previous post so won't repeat myself and have not suggested that the peace agreement was negotiated by any other administration than the Trump one.

However, the Biden administrations decision to delay the withdrawal in order to withdraw on a date that was purely symbolic rather than tactical, and it also allowed opposing forces more time to organise and was a colossal error of judgement. So to land this as a Trump phuck up because it suits your political position is just glossing over inconvenient facts.

My point isn't that Trump is better, or would have handled things better. My point is, framing this as a Trump administration disaster that a Biden administration can absolve themselves of because it suits your political alliances or personal feelings about an individual is misleading and disingenuous.

Third paragraph of post 1017.

I agree the withdrawal was long overdue.
And as such I agree that in principle characterising it as a surrender is by no means justified, but some people do.
My observation was simply that it is odd for people like Tony to blame it entirely on Biden.
Let's apportion the blame fairly.
Trump was the man who signed up to the withdrawal agreement, so anyone who feels that in itself was wrong needs to blame him.
Likewise it was Biden who broke the terms of it and presided over the implementation, so criticism of that can be laid at his door.
I think it is entirely fair to point out that the Trump administration having signed up to the deal, then did nothing to plan how it would actually be done. That lack of planning would have caused Trump just as many problems had he remained in office as it did Biden.
Would he have handled it better? Possibly, but we will never know.
Nothing partisan about it, neither party exactly covered themselves in glory.

 

[NickDReed]

Third paragraph of post 1017.

Thanks for signposting.

Yes, a somewhat simplistic view on a very complex 20 year occupation, expressed in as equally partizan way as it seems to rile against.

My observation was simply that it is odd for people like Tony to blame it entirely on Biden.
Let's apportion the blame fairly.
Trump was the man who signed up to the withdrawal agreement, so anyone who feels that in itself was wrong needs to blame him.
Likewise it was Biden who broke the terms of it and presided over the implementation, so criticism of that can be laid at his door.

Totally agree, it's equally misleading to represent it as Bidens mess as it is to represent it as Trumps.

 

[sploo]

Intellect ? An oxymoron, surely.

There is something deeply ironic about trying to insult others' intellect by indicating it's an oxymoron; when you clearly don't appear to understand the meaning of the word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron

 

[Spectric]

He's got a long history of seeding the idea of us being under attack from foreigners,

The reason why the UK is in such a mess is that we are now just afraid of talking about so many issues with many just swept under the carpet and so the problems just fester. There is nothing wrong in talking about anything because that is the basis of free speech and people can only make decisions if presented with the facts, all that Nigel is presenting are some home truths. If you are of a fragile disposition that cannot handle some facts that you may not like then just turn away or don't watch that program and go and do some woodworking which is far more rewarding than most of the stuff shown on that box in the living room.

The real reason is Trumps business involvement with Russians

Is it not better to have trade than war ? If the Americans had not been so frightened of Russia after WW2 and got involved in the "cold war" and instead embraced Russia and brought them into the fold as a trading partner then the world would be a much better place now. There may never have been a Vietnam war, invasion of Iraq or Afghan and many countries would be financially better off, maybe some technology would not have advanced so quickly as the need to kill and take advantage would not have been there which sadly does drive innovation.

 

[Croolis]

When I see someone referring to Nigel Farage as "Nigel" I shudder. Just like I shudder when I see someone referring to Elon Musk as "Elon".

He's not your mate.

 

[sploo]

The reason why the UK is in such a mess is that we are now just afraid of talking about so many issues with many just swept under the carpet and so the problems just fester. There is nothing wrong in talking about anything because that is the basis of free speech and people can only make decisions if presented with the facts, all that Nigel is presenting are some home truths. If you are of a fragile disposition that cannot handle some facts that you may not like then just turn away or don't watch that program and go and do some woodworking which is far more rewarding than most of the stuff shown on that box in the living room.

Absolutely not. What Farage does is take tiny snippets of truths and mixes them with a healthy dose of misinformation. As an example; some years ago he made claims about a rise in immigration in Scandinavian countries causing a rise in rapes. If you took a brief look at the data on such cases it appeared that he had a point. However - just a little look deeper - showed that the rise was due to the way those countries record such cases (if I recall correctly, all types of sexual assaults were being recorded under "rape"). The other parts of his story were of course nonsense.

But, to a casual eye it appeared to be true, and would stoke distrust - and potential violence - against groups who weren't actually making any difference to those stats.

That's Farage's MO, and always has been. Misinformation in order to cause fear of bogeymen; bogeymen that he claims he can protect us from, if you'll just give him your vote.

 

[sploo]

Is it not better to have trade than war ? If the Americans had not been so frightened of Russia after WW2 and got involved in the "cold war" and instead embraced Russia and brought them into the fold as a trading partner then the world would be a much better place now. There may never have been a Vietnam war, invasion of Iraq or Afghan and many countries would be financially better off, maybe some technology would not have advanced so quickly as the need to kill and take advantage would not have been there which sadly does drive innovation.

It's not trade though, it's ownership. I understand that Trump finds it hard to get lines of credit from US banks because of his terrible reputation. The claim (and I would note it is a claim - I've never seen any hard evidence of it being true) is that he has credit from Russian banks. Putin owns Russia; no bank would lend large amounts without his implicit approval. The argument therefore is that Putin then owns Trump.

Is it true? Maybe. Maybe not - but it is one of the reasons raised for why Trump won't release his tax returns (because it would show to whom he owes money).

 

[Croolis]

Deleted. I'm having a tough morning lol.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Third paragraph of post 1017.

I agree the withdrawal was long overdue.
And as such I agree that in principle characterising it as a surrender is by no means justified, but some people do.
My observation was simply that it is odd for people like Tony to blame it entirely on Biden.
Let's apportion the blame fairly.
Trump was the man who signed up to the withdrawal agreement, so anyone who feels that in itself was wrong needs to blame him.
Likewise it was Biden who broke the terms of it and presided over the implementation, so criticism of that can be laid at his door.
I think it is entirely fair to point out that the Trump administration having signed up to the deal, then did nothing to plan how it would actually be done. That lack of planning would have caused Trump just as many problems had he remained in office as it did Biden.
Would he have handled it better? Possibly, but we will never know.
Nothing partisan about it, neither party exactly covered themselves in glory.

The US lost 2,500 killed and 20,000 injured in Afghanistan over 20 years. The total cost was estimated at $2tn (2,000,000,000,000).

The US public had completely lost interest - forgotten why they were there, and focussed on the costs and casualties which they regarded as excessive and unnecessary.

Arguing whose fault it was that the withdrawal was such a mess is pointless - I suspect politically both parties wanted out.

The public were told the "trained and equipped" Afghan Army could hold back the Taliban. Either a complete mis-judgement, or a convenient smokescreen to do what was politically desirable.

That Trump set in train the withdrawal arrangements is to his credit - he "got the job done". Short attention span, egotism and lack of concern for any humanitarian consequences made it easy.

Biden, by contrast, may be decent and concerned about the consequences of withdrawal. I doubt the delays he initiated made any real difference to the outcomes.

 

[Blackswanwood]

The reason why the UK is in such a mess is that we are now just afraid of talking about so many issues with many just swept under the carpet and so the problems just fester. There is nothing wrong in talking about anything because that is the basis of free speech and people can only make decisions if presented with the facts, all that Nigel is presenting are some home truths. If you are of a fragile disposition that cannot handle some facts that you may not like then just turn away or don't watch that program and go and do some woodworking which is far more rewarding than most of the stuff shown on that box in the living room.


Is it not better to have trade than war ? If the Americans had not been so frightened of Russia after WW2 and got involved in the "cold war" and instead embraced Russia and brought them into the fold as a trading partner then the world would be a much better place now. There may never have been a Vietnam war, invasion of Iraq or Afghan and many countries would be financially better off, maybe some technology would not have advanced so quickly as the need to kill and take advantage would not have been there which sadly does drive innovation.

I think it’s intellectually lazy to claim all that Farage is doing is exercising his right to free speech. Free speech is important but it comes with responsibilities (especially for politicians) to not promote hate and discrimination. (Sorry to disagree with you but I’m exercising my right to free speech ). It is of course why this forum has a rule that precludes

“posting content which promotes hatred of any race, ethnicity, sex, gender, or religion;”


You’ve obviously not read much about post- war Europe. Stalin had a plan to keep moving West. There was no opportunity to bring them into the fold.

 

[danst96]

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.

A voice of reason and facts on this thread, incredible!

 

[Spectric]

Stalin had a plan to keep moving West. There was no opportunity to bring them into the fold.

The whole saga was just badly managed and resulted in the Berlin wall. This point just after VE day would have been an ideal time to put war behind you and start building bridges not walls but it seems they could not let go of being in war mode. Without Russia it was more than likely Germany would have won the war so another reason to build a future as one.

 

[Fergie 307]

The reason why the UK is in such a mess is that we are now just afraid of talking about so many issues with many just swept under the carpet and so the problems just fester. There is nothing wrong in talking about anything because that is the basis of free speech and people can only make decisions if presented with the facts, all that Nigel is presenting are some home truths. If you are of a fragile disposition that cannot handle some facts that you may not like then just turn away or don't watch that program and go and do some woodworking which is far more rewarding than most of the stuff shown on that box in the living room.


Is it not better to have trade than war ? If the Americans had not been so frightened of Russia after WW2 and got involved in the "cold war" and instead embraced Russia and brought them into the fold as a trading partner then the world would be a much better place now. There may never have been a Vietnam war, invasion of Iraq or Afghan and many countries would be financially better off, maybe some technology would not have advanced so quickly as the need to kill and take advantage would not have been there which sadly does drive innovation.

Regarding embracing the USSR as a trading partner etc, I think there was a chap called Stalin who had other ideas, so was never going to happen.

 

[Fergie 307]

The whole saga was just badly managed and resulted in the Berlin wall. This point just after VE day would have been an ideal time to put war behind you and start building bridges not walls but it seems they could not let go of being in war mode. Without Russia it was more than likely Germany would have won the war so another reason to build a future as one.

I really don't know where to start, you obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of how "Uncle Joe" and his cronies saw things.
How do you reach out to people who would rather shoot their own citizens than allow them to have anything to do with you?
It almost sounds as though you think we built the Berlin wall.
The Soviets shot or imprisoned most of the liberated POW we returned to them after the war, because they were viewed as being contaminated after their contact with the west. Many that did survive were still treated as ideologically suspect for decades afterwards.
Stalin exhibited a degree of ruthlessness in suppressing any opposition that makes Putin look about as scary as the Easter Bunny.
He murdered thousands purely on the basis that they might be a threat. This was one of the reasons the Soviets were so ill prepared for the German invasion.
Stalin had conducted numerous purges which led to the majority of his senior military commanders either being shot or sent to the gulags.
The idea that he, or any of his immediate successors, would have entered into a cozy partnership with the west is frankly laughable.
The post war labour government, with strong communist sympathies, gave the Soviets the Rolls Royce jet engine as a gesture of goodwill, a decision Stalin himself found incomprehensibly stupid.
How did they repay us? They promptly reverse engineered it and used their own version in the MIG 15 to shoot down our own and the American's aircraft in Korea.

 

[Spectric]

I really don't know where to start, you obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of how "Uncle Joe" and his cronies saw things.
How do you reach out to people who would rather shoot their own citizens than allow them to have anything to do with you?

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.

The idea that he, or any of his immediate successors, would have entered into a cozy partnership with the west is frankly laughable.

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

 

[Blackswanwood]

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.

I’m guessing the History Channel won’t be calling you as an expert on Post WWII Europe as you’ve missed more than a few key facts.

Stalin wasn’t someone anyone could build trust with. Take a look at Jonathan Dimbleby’s book Endgame 1944 if you want to start to understand what happened.