The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

The US made the landscape more "volatile"/killed more civilians than the Taliban? I mean, possibly. Maybe even probably. But that's not the argument for taking refugees. It could easily be an argument against.

That is the argument for taking in refugees. And I'm suspicious of your "easily."

I don't know what you're referring to re: taking resources. It isn't Iraq; it wasn't a "war for oil".

It was a war for oil insofar as it burned a shit ton of the oil extracted in Iraq to fuel its air campaign.

But oil isn't the only factor here. The military presence in Afghanistan contributed to higher levels of pollution that corrupted local water supplies and reduced air quality. Deforestation in Afghanistan has been a problem since the Russian-Afghan War, and it's continued to be a problem during U.S. occupation (even if the U.S. itself isn't cutting down trees).

Overall, the region of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been environmentally compromised for decades, and the U.S. has been an agent in that development.

 

[Dak]

That is the argument for taking in refugees. And I'm suspicious of your "easily."

So if we grant that the USGov acted to kill civilians (whether intentionally or unintentionally), and prevented the Taliban from developing Afghanistan in accordance with their vision and methods of governance, where does it follow that the USGov should be taking in Afghans to live in the US?

It was a war for oil insofar as it burned a shit ton of the oil extracted in Iraq to fuel its air campaign.

But oil isn't the only factor here. The military presence in Afghanistan contributed to higher levels of pollution that corrupted local water supplies and reduced air quality. Deforestation in Afghanistan has been a problem since the Russian-Afghan War, and it's continued to be a problem during U.S. occupation (even if the U.S. itself isn't cutting down trees).

Overall, the region of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been environmentally compromised for decades, and the U.S. has been an agent in that development.

Again, even if I grant all of that (which I don't agree with attributing every issue to the occupation but that's beside the point), where does it follow that the US should be taking in Afghans to live in the US?

 

[King Richard]

I'm jumping in this argument a little late, but I want to make some points.

The basics:
1. The Taliban are pieces of a shit humans and should never be allowed to rule anyone, anywhere. IMO, they should be annihilated.
2. The US should have never taken the position they did initially. The burden of unfucking that place should have been shared amongst the rest of the non-cunty countries.
3. I truly believe the mission was a righteous one, but clearly something that resembled a plan should have been drafted prior to invasion, but I don't think timelines were necessary.
4. Despite there essentially being an endless war since 2001, the lives of Afghanis was infinitely better while the US was squatting than during Taliban rule. Don't get me wrong, compared to other established nations, it was shit. But it was still better while we were there. If you disagree with that, you're delusional. For those of us who actually participated, y'know, boots on the ground, this is an objective fact. Again, the Taliban are pieces of shit.
5. The US doesn't owe the Afghan government or its people a thing. We devoted 20 years and over a trillion dollars to helping them shed tyranny. At some point, you gotta take the training wheels off. It's a damn shame, but I'm not surprised the entire mission was a catastrophic failure though. Ruling that country is nearly impossible based on the geography, the various groups of people, and the constant support and influence from neighboring countries like Pakistan. So yeah, invading a country to prop up what was for all intents and purposes, a shell government, and expecting it to work or benefit anyone was wishful thinking. The only way this would have worked is if we literally took it over, permanently. But that would lead to perpetual war and the end of some ancient civilizations in the process. But it's doable.

Anyway, the point is, the situation has and probably will always be fucked. I feel bad for the truly innocent people and the folks who quite literally gave their lives to help. RIP

 

[rms]

But oil isn't the only factor here. The military presence in Afghanistan contributed to higher levels of pollution that corrupted local water supplies and reduced air quality. Deforestation in Afghanistan has been a problem since the Russian-Afghan War, and it's continued to be a problem during U.S. occupation (even if the U.S. itself isn't cutting down trees).

jeez this is a low fucking bar lol

 

[CiG]

"Extremely unpopular" and yet here we are. Curious. I'm sure those polls were a true random sample.

The Asian Foundation's polling data isn't perfect but in 2009 they found that half of Afghans have sympathy with the Taliban and then in 2019 that dropped down to just over 13%. Regardless of the sampling quality that still shows a significant drop in support for the Taliban.

The simple fact is that a small fraction of the Afghan population wanted or wants what the US had on offer, other than its money. The Taliban were already in uncontested power in 2001 (and were even supported with millions of dollars by the Bush administration at first!) and now the situation, after 20 years of wasted blood and treasure, has returned to the previous mean. And yet somehow the US is now responsible?

US occupying forces and the Taliban are unpopular among Afghan people. It's not that opposing one means supporting the other. To the question of responsibility; I've already explained why and you haven't given a satisfying rebuttal imo. The current refugee crisis has the US' fingerprints all over it.

The US invaded, installed a puppet government, enforced cooperation and anti-Taliban actions for 2 decades, and then bailed overnight which crushed ANA morale and left everybody who even had a tangential relation to US occupying forces vulnerable. I won't bother playing hypotheticals about "what if the US had never invaded" but a safe assumption is that there wouldn't be thousands of Afghan people guilty of collaborating with US in the eyes of the Taliban if they hadn't.

Speaking of hypotheticals, the US should have never intervened in the Afghan-Soviet Union war. Afghanistan would have probably been in a much better place today if they had been ruled by the USSR until it fell, like Uzbekistan or Tajikistan.

 

[King Richard]

Speaking of hypotheticals, the US should have never intervened in the Afghan-Soviet Union war. Afghanistan would have probably been in a much better place today if they had been ruled by the USSR until it fell, like Uzbekistan or Tajikistan.

wat

 

[rms]

US occupying forces and the Taliban are unpopular among Afghan people. It's not that opposing one means supporting the other.

I don't think you understand the conflict well enough if you think this decision isn't zero sum?

and then bailed overnight

isnt this the four year transition started by trump?

which crushed ANA morale

i mean you gotta read up more on the ANA/ANF...Biden gave you a freebie, "if Afghani's won't fight for their country, we will not either"

"what if the US had never invaded" but a safe assumption is that there wouldn't be thousands of Afghan people guilty of collaborating with US in the eyes of the Taliban if they hadn't.

feel like at this point we should say your welcome for giving afghanis this opportunity?

Afghanistan would have probably been in a much better place today if they had been ruled by the USSR until it fell,

the fuck you think USSR was winning this and maintaining?! my god man you've gone irrational in these past months

 

[CiG]

The irony of two dickheads acting flabbergasted by what I'm saying as they call people from Afghanistan "Afghanis" lmfao.

 

[Dak]

The Asian Foundation's polling data isn't perfect but in 2009 they found that half of Afghans have sympathy with the Taliban and then in 2019 that dropped down to just over 13%. Regardless of the sampling quality that still shows a significant drop in support for the Taliban.

CIA front group. Started by the CIA but uh, "not affiliated anymore". Sure thing.

The US invaded, installed a puppet government, enforced cooperation and anti-Taliban actions for 2 decades, and then bailed overnight which crushed ANA morale and left everybody who even had a tangential relation to US occupying forces vulnerable. I won't bother playing hypotheticals about "what if the US had never invaded" but a safe assumption is that there wouldn't be thousands of Afghan people guilty of collaborating with US in the eyes of the Taliban if they hadn't.

Ok. So let's say the argument is that "we owe it to our collaborators." For an illegitimate occupation? I mean, I get the sentiment, but it's not a slam dunk. Definitely doesn't extend to "everyone who was happy on the US gibsmedats".

Speaking of hypotheticals, the US should have never intervened in the Afghan-Soviet Union war. Afghanistan would have probably been in a much better place today if they had been ruled by the USSR until it fell, like Uzbekistan or Tajikistan.

Agreed.

 

[CiG]

CIA front group, started by the CIA but uh, "not affiliated anymore". Sure thing.

Okay tankie.

If the data is dodgy due to CIA involvement, for what purpose is it?

Ok. So let's say the argument is that "we owe it to our collaborators." For an illegitimate occupation? I mean, I get the sentiment, but it's not a slam dunk. Definitely doesn't extend to "everyone who was happy on the US gibsmedats".

I mean it's ultimately irrelevant because your standards for justification are pretty uniquely high. The reality is, nations will take in the refugees based on the basic understanding that the US has caused this turmoil.

I don't think you understand the conflict well enough if you think this decision isn't zero sum?

I don't think you understand it if you think there was a decision by the people in the first place. There's a faulty assumption here that just because the Afghan people oppose the US occupation that means they chose the Taliban. All I'm pointing out is that both entities are very unpopular with the people.

isnt this the four year transition started by trump?

God man, why did you have to jump into this discussion? You're so fucking slow that I'm going to have to waste time explaining shit everybody else already understands. Yes Trump started the withdrawal, but the way Biden enacted it was that nobody in Afghanistan knew the precise time the US would withdraw (for "safety reasons" apparently), and interviews with ANA members shows that it happened so suddenly that it crushed their morale and that's why the panic started in the first place.

the fuck you think USSR was winning this and maintaining?! my god man you've gone irrational in these past months

What? Use your words better.

wat

The US' support of the Mujahedin has had ripple effects the region is still feeling today.

 

[Dak]

If the data is dodgy due to CIA involvement, for what purpose is it?

Justifying foreverwar. Pretty much all NGOs are garbage front groups for international profiteering, whether backed by the CIA or various other interlocking interests.

I mean it's ultimately irrelevant because your standards for justification are pretty uniquely high. The reality is, nations will take in the refugees based on the basic understanding that the US has caused this turmoil.

But if the US didn't cause any turmoil, there would still be justification for taking in refugees because whatever talking points are ready to hand. I reject this buillshit pseudomoralizing.

I don't think you understand it if you think there was a decision by the people in the first place. There's a faulty assumption here that just because the Afghan people oppose the US occupation that means they chose the Taliban. All I'm pointing out is that both entities are very unpopular with the people.

The Afghan people are still tribal, and are also low avg IQ. Bedouin proverb logic applies (I and my brother against......etc). The more the Enlightenment-descendant but hollowed-out power structures keep failing to understand anything outside of their tortured epistemes, the more they will fail.

 

[rms]

The irony of two dickheads acting flabbergasted by what I'm saying as they call people from Afghanistan "Afghanis" lmfao.

do some time there next time, mujha fucka

 

[rms]

All I'm pointing out is that both entities are very unpopular with the people

didn't ask you to re word your original reply Jordan Peterson Jr, I'm asking you to grapple with the real-world where being neutral isn't neutral

and interviews with ANA members shows that it happened so suddenly that it crushed their morale and that's why the panic started in the first place.

lol and I'm reiterating again that the morale never existed and never had any hope. Sensationalist interview provides sensationalist viewpoint.

 

[Einherjar86]

So if we grant that the USGov acted to kill civilians (whether intentionally or unintentionally), and prevented the Taliban from developing Afghanistan in accordance with their vision and methods of governance, where does it follow that the USGov should be taking in Afghans to live in the US?



Again, even if I grant all of that (which I don't agree with attributing every issue to the occupation but that's beside the point), where does it follow that the US should be taking in Afghans to live in the US?

It follows from the U.S. created or contributed to an inhospitable environment for Afghan civilians who don't want to live there anymore.

 

[Dak]

It follows from the U.S. created or contributed to an inhospitable environment for Afghan civilians who don't want to live there anymore.

So there was no inhospitable environment before 2001?

 

[CiG]

Justifying foreverwar. Pretty much all NGOs are garbage front groups for international profiteering, whether backed by the CIA or various other interlocking interests.

How does that specific poll justify "foreverwar" though?

But if the US didn't cause any turmoil, there would still be justification for taking in refugees because whatever talking points are ready to hand. I reject this buillshit pseudomoralizing.

Not by me. If Taliban rule created small waves of refugees, then countries a lot closer could step up if they want. You're moving the goalposts.

The Afghan people are still tribal, and are also low avg IQ. Bedouin proverb logic applies (I and my brother against......etc). The more the Enlightenment-descendant but hollowed-out power structures keep failing to understand anything outside of their tortured epistemes, the more they will fail.

Be careful because you're making a very neocon interventionist point here. The testing on average Afghan IQ was conducted between 2002 and 2006, in 2000 the literacy rate among Afghan females was lower than 13% and a couple of years ago this was tested again showing an over 100% increase in female literacy. This means that since that IQ study was done it has very likely risen. This could easily be used as a justification for occupation of the country.

After all, what good is citing average IQ when half the population isn't even allowed to participate in the education system?

(Also Richard Lynn's studies on IQ are highly controversial in the first place.)

didn't ask you to re word your original reply Jordan Peterson Jr, I'm asking you to grapple with the real-world where being neutral isn't neutral

I never said the Afghan people were neutral in the first place. Sorry I'd compare you to some popular figure but I can't think of anyone retarded enough.

lol and I'm reiterating again that the morale never existed and never had any hope. Sensationalist interview provides sensationalist viewpoint.

This is a non-answer to what I said. People were falling off the landing gears of planes to their deaths trying to escape because the withdrawal was so sudden. People thought they had more time to secure relocation and didn't expect to wake up one morning and discover that the US had left in the night.

do some time there next time, mujha fucka

Do some reading.

 

[Dak]

How does that specific poll justify "foreverwar" though?
Not by me. If Taliban rule created small waves of refugees, then countries a lot closer could step up if they want. You're moving the goalposts.

You haven't even created goalposts other than "US needs take refugees because".

Be careful because you're making a very neocon interventionist point here. The testing on average Afghan IQ was conducted between 2002 and 2006, in 2000 the literacy rate among Afghan females was lower than 13% and a couple of years ago this was tested again showing an over 100% increase in female literacy. This means that since that IQ study was done it has very likely risen. This could easily be used as a justification for occupation of the country.

After all, what good is citing average IQ when half the population isn't even allowed to participate in the education system?

Improved literacy =/= grand improvements in IQ. I also notice you equivocated between Afghans and Afghan females, when there is an imbalance in male/female #s, that favors (or actually in real terms disfavors males). Also, raising, even minutely, via verbal gains, female IQ, while not helping male IQ, when males out number females, adds towards further destabilizing.

You guys advocate for precisely the harm you protest against, and then want the US to accept the bankruptcy. It'd be hilarious if you had to accept the costs yourself.

 

[CiG]

Improved literacy =/= grand improvements in IQ.

More goalpost moving. Grand improvements? You made a claim about average IQ, I merely pointed out that many contributory changes have been documented since 2006.

I also notice you equivocated between Afghans and Afghan females, when there is an imbalance in male/female #s, that favors (or actually in real terms disfavors males).

What're you getting at? About 49% of the Afghan population is female.

Also, raising, even minutely, via verbal gains, female IQ, while not helping male IQ, when males out number females, adds towards further destabilizing.

Not sure why you would say they're not helping male IQ. The vast majority of Afghan people live rurally and even still the male literacy rate is just below 60%. Hopefully if rural schooling improves (or in many cases comes into existence) this number will stabilize or even increase, and even if that happens female rates have a long way to catch up at 29%. Though if the Taliban makes it illegal for females to be in school again, it's probably moot.

You guys advocate for precisely the harm you protest against, and then want the US to accept the bankruptcy. It'd be hilarious if you had to accept the costs yourself.

You can keep saying it I suppose but advocating for taking in refugees isn't the same as advocating for invading a foreign country.

 

[Dak]

More goalpost moving. Grand improvements? You made a claim about average IQ, I merely pointed out that many contributory changes have been documented since 2006.

What're you getting at? About 49% of the Afghan population is female.

Not sure why you would say they're not helping male IQ. The vast majority of Afghan people live rurally and even still the male literacy rate is just below 60%. Hopefully if rural schooling improves (or in many cases comes into existence) this number will stabilize or even increase, and even if that happens female rates have a long way to catch up at 29%. Though if the Taliban makes it illegal for females to be in school again, it's probably moot.

Not sure why you broke all of these takes out. Based on these takes, sound like everything is good. No need for refugees.

You can keep saying it I suppose but advocating for taking in refugees isn't the same as advocating for invading a foreign country.

It's not, to be sure. But the the people advocating for option two seem to be the same people advocating for option one. Perpetually.

 

[CiG]

Not sure why you broke all of these takes out. Based on these takes, sound like everything is good. No need for refugees.

lol? This data was generated under US occupation, this is why I said you should be careful because you're making pro-occupation statements, which you just did again by saying "sound like everything is good."

These net benefits ended the day Biden pulled the US out ya dingus. Women's rights advancements ended the week the Taliban took back Afghanistan.

It's not, to be sure. But the the people advocating for option two seem to be the same people advocating for option one. Perpetually.

When I look around, all the people calling for the US (and other nations) to take in refugees are the same people who have been desperate for the US to get out of the middle east. The position is steeped in an understanding of what invading and pulling out would do to Afghanistan. Maybe we just mingle in different crowds.