Fresh Start Political Thread

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by nonniey

It certainly appears like we are paying an enormously higher price (Prestige, trust, lives and yes probably treasure too(which you were highlighting)) in leaving than we would have if we stayed. In other words it certainly looks like it was worth staying. Due to this surrender, we've already payed more in lives than we had in the last 18 months and frankly I'm sure other Americans have already been killed there that we don't know about yet and more will killed due to our surrender of Afghanistan to the Taliban.

ive heard 3 things so far that I agree with.

1. from day 1 back in early 2000 .. perhaps the best approach wouldnt have been to try and stabilize the entire country and competing tribes but take like half of it, fortify that area and let the other half be taliban a al S Korea and N Korea.

2. may 1 withdrawl (while still being rushed and imperfect) was a better date bc that would have been right at beginning of the fighting season and the Taliban wouldnt have been poised to threaten Kabul so quickly .. vs now, august right in the middle of the war season.

3. If we stayed, it wasnt going to as "peaceful" as it had been the past few years. I think the calmness the past few years was conditioned on us leaving.

For whatever its worth, this keyboard warrior is glad we are pulling out.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I am really torn, overall I supported exiting Afghanistan, but at the same point we still have troops in Europe 75 years after WWII. The main difference I guess is that Europe had functioning governments that chose to stay connected not puppet governments. If people in any country choose not to defend themselves and create a stable form of government, then we can't count that cost of exiting as anything but the acceptance that we are not an empire, world police organization, or dictatorship; and we should have left long ago.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

We are all wrong at times, admitting one was wrong in a position one took is something most won't do. You look like you are mulling over admitting supporting an exit was the wrong position to take.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

ive heard 3 things so far that I agree with.

1. from day 1 back in early 2000 .. perhaps the best approach wouldnt have been to try and stabilize the entire country and competing tribes but take like half of it, fortify that area and let the other half be taliban a al S Korea and N Korea.

2. may 1 withdrawl (while still being rushed and imperfect) was a better date bc that would have been right at beginning of the fighting season and the Taliban wouldnt have been poised to threaten Kabul so quickly .. vs now, august right in the middle of the war season.

3. If we stayed, it wasnt going to as "peaceful" as it had been the past few years. I think the calmness the past few years was conditioned on us leaving.

For whatever its worth, this keyboard warrior is glad we are pulling out.

RE Point 3. The "peaceful" period goes back to 2014 years before anyone in power was proposing leaving. We had this under control and along came Trump and Biden who thought surrender was the better option. It is now readily apparent it was the worst choice that could have been made.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

RE Point 3. The "peaceful" period goes back to 2014 years before anyone in power was proposing leaving. We had this under control and along came Trump and Biden who thought surrender was the better option. It is now readily apparent it was the worst choice that could have been made.

Surrender??? WTF? We trained 350,000 Afghan citizens to defend their own Country. We gave them ,support in every way imaginable ,our Country was /is overwhelmingly for getting out of that shit hole. I have said before I feel for all still there but when do they take responsibility for themselves? This was not a surprise to anyone why were people waiting to leave?

[nonniey]

[QUOTE=Giantone;1288331..... /is overwhelmingly for getting out of that shit hole.......[/QUOTE]

Like I posted above it is hard for people to admit they supported the wrong position even when events clearly show it to be the wrong position. There is no question now (none!) that the wrong decision was made by both Trump and Biden in surrendering Afghanistan to the Taliban (and yes surrender is the right word for it - get used to it too as that term is starting to take hold - see link below). We are paying a high price for their ineptitude and will continue to pay it for years to come.


https://www.militarytimes.com/opinio...-of-surrender/

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Herschel Walker running for U.S. Senate in GA.

Well he was on the apprentice so he has total legitimacy with the Trump crowd…

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Like I posted above it is hard for people to admit they supported the wrong position even when events clearly show it to be the wrong position. There is no question now (none!) that the wrong decision was made by both Trump and Biden in surrendering Afghanistan to the Taliban (and yes surrender is the right word for it - get used to it too as that term is starting to take hold - see link below). We are paying a high price for their ineptitude and will continue to pay it for years to come.


https://www.militarytimes.com/opinio...-of-surrender/

First and foremost the decision to leave was and is the right one.The implementation and carrying it out is the problem. To assume people agreed with the wrong position is BS. What was wrong with the plan to withdraw was counting on the afghans to defend their own Country. Again this isn't all Biden or trump this fuck up goes back to every administration since the 80's.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

First and foremost the decision to leave was and is the right one........

I'll repeat myself

"Like I posted above it is hard for people to admit they supported the wrong position even when events clearly show it to be the wrong position".


Goal - Do what is in the best interests of the United States.

There isn't really a question whether it was the wrong decision - It is costing us more to leave (across the board) than it would have if we stayed. The surrender decision was not in the best interests of the United States and thus the wrong decision to make (Events have shown that - laid it out plain as day etc).

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by nonniey

I'll repeat myself



"Like I posted above it is hard for people to admit they supported the wrong position even when events clearly show it to be the wrong position".





Goal - Do what is in the best interests of the United States.



There isn't really a question whether it was the wrong decision - It is costing us more to leave (across the board) than it would have if we stayed. The surrender decision was not in the best interests of the United States and thus the wrong decision to make (Events have shown that - laid it out plain as day etc).

That is like giving a grade to a draft before any player has taken the field. The long term interest of the United States is not to be a protectorate or empire building state. The exit/withdrawal/surrender was handled badly. That cost many lives. The decision to stay this long was likely flawed but history will judge.

It may be hard for people to admit they are wrong, but it is also way to early in the end game of Afghanistan to say that leaving was the wrong one.

Time, as always, will be the determining factor in the role the US played in Afghanistan's development.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[MTK]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Well he was on the apprentice so he has total legitimacy with the Trump crowd…

And he's got a serious mental disorder so he's good to go!

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

That is like giving a grade to a draft before any player has taken the field. The long term interest of the United States is not to be a protectorate or empire building state. The exit/withdrawal/surrender was handled badly. That cost many lives. The decision to stay this long was likely flawed but history will judge.

It may be hard for people to admit they are wrong, but it is also way to early in the end game of Afghanistan to say that leaving was the wrong one.

Time, as always, will be the determining factor in the role the US played in Afghanistan's development.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Not really as in this case your #1 draft pick who was on trial for murder (you were hoping he'd be acquitted) was just convicted.

Wrong decision.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Not really as in this case your #1 draft pick who was on trial for murder (you were hoping he'd be acquitted) was just convicted.



Wrong decision.

I hope you will be able to admit it if it turns out you are wrong.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by MTK

And he's got a serious mental disorder so he's good to go!

I heard he also has a God, Guns, and Trump tattoo right across his ass. This could be a rumor, but if true I think we may have the most qualified Republican candidate for Senate in years….maybe ever.

[SunnySide]

A Texas law that would ban abortions after as early as six weeks is poised to take effect Wednesday, after a federal appellate court's rulings stymied efforts to block the law.

On Friday night, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals canceled a hearing planned for Monday, at which more than 20 abortion providers had hoped to persuade a federal district court in Austin to block the law from taking effect.

Providers have sued to overturn the law, which they say is the nation's strictest and would create what they call a “bounty hunting scheme” in allowing members of the general public to sue those who might have violated the law. The law, Senate Bill 8, would prohibit abortions after cardiac activity can be detected without specifying a time frame. This can be as early as six weeks’ gestation, before many women know they are pregnant. The term “fetal heartbeat” is considered a misnomer because an embryo doesn’t possess a heart at that point.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08...circuit-court/

(CNN)A Texas state law that bans abortion after as early as six weeks into the pregnancy could provide the playbook for red states to pass extreme abortion restrictions -- without having to wait for the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade.
The measure -- signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May and set to go into effect on Wednesday -- prohibits abortion providers from conducting abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected. It would effectively outlaw at least 85% of the abortions sought in the state, according to opponents of the law, since that point is around six weeks into the pregnancy, before some women know they're pregnant.
The law was passed amid a slew of restrictions that were approved by GOP legislatures across the country this year, after the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett jerked the Supreme Court further to right and made it more likely that the court will scale back or reverse entirely Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that enshrined a constitutional right to an abortion before the fetus is viable.

But among those restrictions, the Texas bill stands out for the novel approach it takes in curtailing the procedure.

228 GOP lawmakers call on Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade
228 GOP lawmakers call on Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade
Rather than imposing a criminal or regulatory punishment for those who conduct abortions after the point in the pregnancy, the state law created a so-called "private right of action" to enforce the restriction. Essentially, the legislature deputized private citizens to bring civil litigation -- with the threat of $10,000 or more in damages -- against providers or even anyone who helped a woman access an abortion after six weeks.

"The way the bill is structured incentivizes vigilante lawsuits that will harass abortion providers and those who support providing abortions in Texas," Adriana Piñon, an attorney at the Texas chapter of ACLU, told CNN.
The approach was aimed at insulating the law from the sort of federal legal challenges that would prevent it from going into effect. One such lawsuit -- brought by several clinics represented by the ACLU and other groups -- is now mired in a complicated procedural dispute that has prompted the clinics to ask for a Supreme Court intervention.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/31/polit...ner/index.html

Feels like an Onion article.

Interesting to see how this plays out. Kinda crappy for the Texas 5th Circuit to sit on it then cancel the hearing at the last moment.

[SunnySide]

Abortions are officially banned in Texas as of midnight last night.