Biden

[TheDemonLord]

you are wasting your time i pointed out that to him before including showing him the verses in the bible when he claimed it was only the koran it seems TLDR has a prefered sky pixie, all other are fake news.......

Except for one teeny tiny detail. Now, I'm not a Christian, I literally have no dog in this fight - but whilst there are passages in the Old Testament that you correctly cited - there are other passages in the Old Testament - such as a prohibition against eating Pork or Shellfish or wearing clothes of more than one fibre - yet, all of those aren't prohibited in Christianity - and this happens to be because of the events of the New Testament.

Or for a better answer:

https://www.versebyverseministry.org...tians-eat-pork

And this happens to be relevant, the passages you cited are nullified by the above - however, no such nullification exists in the Qu'ran.

Other claims were that he knows more than the US supreme court judges about US law and more about US security than the FBI
Add him to ignore and it cuts down the page size by 40%

For someone that claims to have me on Ignore, you do love to talk about me. I mean, there's people on here that I mentally ignore: I skip their posts, I don't respond to them, I don't reference them - because I don't want to interact with them.

And then there's you "I have him on Ignore, you should too, but here's a post of his, and here's my misinterpretation of what he said and TDL TDL TDL TDL TDL TDL TDL*frothing at the mouth*"

[TheDemonLord]

Thanks.
I suspect that we have a quite different perspective on colonialisation and its benefits, not to mention justifications for recent invasions around the globe (post 2000) by the US / UK / France and Germany.
Cheers, Viking

Oh I don't doubt that we do.

However Afghanistan represents in a microcosm every argument for and against what the British did.

Currently there are some rather abhorrent 'cultural practices' in Afghanistan (Raping of Boys - aka Bacha Bazi comes to mind). Do we in the West have a duty of care over our Fellow Man? And what is the extent of that Duty of Care?

Consider the personal example, you're walking home at night and you see a Man trying to rape a Woman - do you intervene? Do you use Force to stop him? Do you use Lethal force to stop him? Do you call the Police and walk away and go not my problem? Do you do nothing at all?

These are all the Moral choices to the Individual and I believe the same applies on the international stage.

When Lord Napier said to build a Gallows alongside a funeral Pyre and let us all act according to our Customs - I firmly believe that to be a moral, virtuous statement.

When Britain created the West African Squadron and destroyed thousand year old practices and cripples the economies of several African nations, to stop Slavery - I firmly believe that to be a moral and virtuous action.

Doing these things comes with a cost however. The current 'academic' milieu is to say it's all bad - but those same people have been howling about what will happen to Women's rights in Afghanistan now that the Taliban are back in charge.

The point is - you can't have it both ways.

Sure, Colonization did some pretty horrendous things (Treatment of Aboriginals in Australia is a particularly black stain) but it also brought stability, rule of law, democracy, education and functioning societies and ran them for sufficient time for people to realize that it's better than the previous system.

Afghanistan is what happens when you don't do that, you can't just give something to someone that they don't think they want and that they didn't fight for and then expect them to respect it.

[Viking01]

Oh I don't doubt that we do.

However Afghanistan represents in a microcosm every argument for and against what the British did.

Currently there are some rather abhorrent 'cultural practices' in Afghanistan (Raping of Boys - aka Bacha Bazi comes to mind). Do we in the West have a duty of care over our Fellow Man? And what is the extent of that Duty of Care?

Consider the personal example, you're walking home at night and you see a Man trying to rape a Woman - do you intervene? Do you use Force to stop him? Do you use Lethal force to stop him? Do you call the Police and walk away and go not my problem? Do you do nothing at all?

These are all the Moral choices to the Individual and I believe the same applies on the international stage.

When Lord Napier said to build a Gallows alongside a funeral Pyre and let us all act according to our Customs - I firmly believe that to be a moral, virtuous statement.

When Britain created the West African Squadron and destroyed thousand year old practices and cripples the economies of several African nations, to stop Slavery - I firmly believe that to be a moral and virtuous action.

Doing these things comes with a cost however. The current 'academic' milieu is to say it's all bad - but those same people have been howling about what will happen to Women's rights in Afghanistan now that the Taliban are back in charge.

The point is - you can't have it both ways.

Sure, Colonization did some pretty horrendous things (Treatment of Aboriginals in Australia is a particularly black stain) but it also brought stability, rule of law, democracy, education and functioning societies and ran them for sufficient time for people to realize that it's better than the previous system.

Afghanistan is what happens when you don't do that, you can't just give something to someone that they don't think they want and that they didn't fight for and then expect them to respect it.

Good Afternoon.

My last post applied solely to colonialism and invasions (in the pursuit of Empire). So I'm a little puzzled by parts of your last reply (#377).

1. Afghanistan in the 1800's
Given that the initial invasion of Afghanistan by the British (and the subsequent Afghan Wars) in the 1800's had nothing to do with either "human rights" or "social reconstruction", I don't see why you regard Afghanistan (or social factors) as the ideal example to focus on.

The Afghan Wars were simply a chapter in the colonial Great Game, in this case the clash between British and Russian empires. And in the case of the English, just several of many actions in the protection of its financial jewel of the crown - India. [ e.g. Crimea - Charge of the Light Brigade ]

2. Afghanistan post 911
The US and its NATO friends (e.g. the UK, Germany, etc) did not join the current foreign escapade in Afghanistan either "to root out terrorists threatening their homelands" or "in support of human rights and the advancement of women". So let's just cross those "red herrings" off the list right upfront.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacifi...nistan/2212251

Apart from tacit "political cover" provided by NATO nations, western interest in Afghanistan has been driven simply by some combination of self interest re (i) geo-strategic benefit to the US due to Afghanistan's central location (ii) proceeds from the opium trade - for funding purchase and supply of weapons (iii) access to and exploitation of mineral wealth, and routing of pipelines from some other Stans.

3. Other Factors
You also mentioned a number of other points you seemed to think relevant :
-Slavery
-Bringing of stability, rule of law, democracy, education and functioning societies

Slavery
Let me start by saying that I'm not a supporter of slavery. But you seem to like mentioning the UK being the first in the world to outlaw slavery. As if to try and occupy some moral high ground on this topic.

Granted, England did outlaw slavery (in its territories and by its agents) via the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. [We should at the same time also mention the start of the Industrial Revolution and the 1833 Factory Act (which was targetted at the use of UK child labour). This was the first in a number of labour related Acts passed over that century. Not all was well on the labour front at home.]

But on the topic of slavery, you always seem to omit a few other little facts along the way:

- England was one of the principal parties giving rise to the growth of the African slave trade in the first place, turning what was then a local tribal practice in central Africa into a sizeable trans-Atlantic trade (for acquiring and transporting cheap labour to work British-owned Caribbean plantations - as well as for the transport of colonial goods back to England).

- The major English slave owners were financially compensated for their loss of slaves at the time of abolition. Indeed, the English taxpayer was still paying off that particular debt up until 2015:

https://www.rt.com/uk/418814-slave-c...stol-taxpayer/

- It may have been the first to legislate against the practice, but the legislation did not put an end to the practice of using slave labour. Indeed, the practice of using effectively slave labour by the British in the Caribbean persisted until late into the 1800's. [We could also mention strong British material support for the US Confederacy during the US Civil War 1861-65].

- When some of the Caribbean islands secured independence in the 1960's - and wished to discuss the payment of reparations, this was - and continues to be - actively resisted by the English government:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitic...k-over-slavery
https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...ainst-humanity

The book "Britain's Black Debt - Reparations for Caribbean Slavery and Native Genocide" (by Hilary Beckles) provides interesting reading.

Social Model
As to why the rulers of Protestant England of the early 1800's thought their society offered a better social model to the world (i.e. a better functioning society; greater stability), I leave that up to you to answer.

Perhaps due to being more industrially advanced than its competitors? Perhaps export of its poor and criminal (to places like Australia) also represented a solution to a then-current social problem.

Bringing of Stability, Rule of Law, Democracy, Education and Functioning Societies
You could have included "Christian Religion" in the above list as well.

The way you present them seems to paint a very rosy glow as to the motivations of British Empire. I think the key question to ask first is whether colonialisation of various countries by Britain was carried out primarily for:

- Enrichment of the UK Crown, UK mercantile aristocracy of the day, and the City of London
or
- Pursuit of the five factors you listed above.

Because I'd strongly argue the former (enrichment), with some of the latter factors (e.g. Rule of Law; Education; Democracy) simply being mechanisms used to try help achieve the former.

And in the case of the preceding three factors, the provision of "only just enough" of each - in order to facilitate operation of (and minimise disruption to) the exploitative process. After all, this was a "business" that was being run, not a benevolent society. And one didn't want to foster ideas of collaboration and independence amongst the natives.

[TheDemonLord]

Good Afternoon.

1. Afghanistan in the 1800's
Given that the initial invasion of Afghanistan by the British (and the subsequent Afghan Wars) in the 1800's had nothing to do with either "human rights" or "social reconstruction", I don't see why you regard Afghanistan (or social factors) as the ideal example to focus on.

The Afghan Wars were simply a chapter in the colonial Great Game, in this case the clash between British and Russian empires. And in the case of the English, just several of many actions in the protection of its financial jewel of the crown - India. [ e.g. Crimea - Charge of the Light Brigade ]

Let me first acknowledge that there were and are ulterior motives in the case of the British Empire, and that there were many many travesty in that regard. However, 'Civilizing the Savages' is/was a very salient factor in the process of Empire building.

Now, you'll excuse the language used (as I'm using the contemporary phrasing) - but the idea of 'civilizing savages' included what could be considered proto-human rights. Banning the practice of Wife Burning, Trial by Jury as opposed to lynching/extrajudicial killing.

These are things which were things, along with missionary work, financial considerations, prestige, strategic importance etc. etc. that were present.

2. Afghanistan post 911
The US and its NATO friends (e.g. the UK, Germany, etc) did not join the current foreign escapade in Afghanistan either "to root out terrorists threatening their homelands" or "in support of human rights and the advancement of women". So let's just cross those "red herrings" off the list right upfront.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacifi...nistan/2212251

Apart from tacit "political cover" provided by NATO nations, western interest in Afghanistan has been driven simply by some combination of self interest re (i) geo-strategic benefit to the US due to Afghanistan's central location (ii) proceeds from the opium trade - for funding purchase and supply of weapons (iii) access to and exploitation of mineral wealth, and routing of pipelines from some other Stans.

So, at the time the War kicked off, I remember being skeptical of both the motivations AND that a successful end-goal. That is to say, The Military Conflict would always have the Americans winning. The Subsequent objectives (whatever they may have been) less so.

As the conflict evolved, the stated intent was to leave Afghanistan as a stable democracy (I'll grant you every argument that the Stated intent was BS) - this is where the spectre of Human Right rises up.

3. Other Factors
You also mentioned a number of other points you seemed to think relevant :
-Slavery
-Bringing of stability, rule of law, democracy, education and functioning societies

Slavery
Let me start by saying that I'm not a supporter of slavery. But you seem to like mentioning the UK being the first in the world to outlaw slavery. As if to try and occupy some moral high ground on this topic.

Not try, actually.

See, before a long process in British philosophical thought, Slavery was a Human Universal. I want to be clear on this point: Every Culture and Language has a word for Slaves (most typically referred to people captured in Warfare, forced into manual/menial labour).

Every Nation has or had a concept of Slavery - whether that was the slightly less abhorrent 'Indentured Serfdom', through to the barbarity of the Arab Slave trade.

Not only was British Philosophical thought the first to realise that Slavery was a Moral Wrong, but so fervent was this conviction that it actually enforced it on a Global scale.

Granted, England did outlaw slavery (in its territories and by its agents) via the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. [We should at the same time also mention the start of the Industrial Revolution and the 1833 Factory Act (which was targetted at the use of UK child labour). This was the first in a number of labour related Acts passed over that century. Not all was well on the labour front at home.]

I'd argue that although the Legislation was passed in 1833, the seeds are far older, I point to Mansfield's judgement in the Summerset case in 1772.

But on the topic of slavery, you always seem to omit a few other little facts along the way:

- England was one of the principal parties giving rise to the growth of the African slave trade in the first place, turning what was then a local tribal practice in central Africa into a sizeable trans-Atlantic trade (for acquiring and transporting cheap labour to work British-owned Caribbean plantations - as well as for the transport of colonial goods back to England).

Sorry, there's a factual error there, it wasn't a small local tribal practice - Read the description of the Kingdom of Benin when the Dutch and British first made contact - That was a kingdom built on the Slave trade.

Secondly - as above - Every nation on earth at this period had some form of Slave trade - the point of contention is that Britain (as well as Portugal and Spain) codified the practice and made it brutally efficient.

That England profited greatly by finding a way to do something better that everyone else was also doing is not somehow an argument that has a question of Morality attached to it.

We consider it Immoral (and it IS immoral), At the time, however, it was not considered to be so.

- The major English slave owners were financially compensated for their loss of slaves at the time of abolition. Indeed, the English taxpayer was still paying off that particular debt up until 2015:

https://www.rt.com/uk/418814-slave-c...stol-taxpayer/

Sure - however that is inline with the English Common Law - As a modern example, the failed 'Buy Back' scheme in NZ is on the same principle, if the Government retroactively makes something illegal to own, it must compensate the owner for the loss (which is no fault of theirs)

We may think that the eeeeevil slave owners should be punished by the standards of today - the reality is, they were doing something that was legal (and again I must stress) that everyone else, on planet earth had done in one form or another.

- It may have been the first to legislate against the practice, but the legislation did not put an end to the practice of using slave labour. Indeed, the practice of using effectively slave labour by the British in the Caribbean persisted until late into the 1800's. [We could also mention strong British material support for the US Confederacy during the US Civil War 1861-65].

Sure, but it was the Royal Navy that did actually put an end to the Slave trade, which effectively set the death knell for the Practice as a whole.

- When some of the Caribbean islands secured independence in the 1960's - and wished to discuss the payment of reparations, this was - and continues to be - actively resisted by the English government:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitic...k-over-slavery
https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...ainst-humanity

The book "Britain's Black Debt - Reparations for Caribbean Slavery and Native Genocide" (by Hilary Beckles) provides interesting reading.

Ah yes, Reparations. Paid to Whom? Not the Slaves themselves - they are all dead. What about their direct descendants? Also Dead. And what is the Statute of Limitations on Reparations?

Do I get to demand Italy pay me for the deeds of the Romans? or what about the Norwegian and Sweden for the crimes of the Vikings? Should they inturn have to pay the cost for the crimes of THEIR ancestors in the same time period?

The is little more than thinly veiled jealousy at the fact that some people won, some lost.

Social Model
As to why the rulers of Protestant England of the early 1800's thought their society offered a better social model to the world (i.e. a better functioning society; greater stability), I leave that up to you to answer.

So, before I answer this - I'm an Atheist myself - I say this to show I've got no skin in the following answer:

In the Protestant view of the world there are 2 key things:

1: The Protestant Work ethic
2: The individual is partly divine.

The first is fairly self explanatory - if everyone in a society works their hardest to better society, Society gets better.
The second one is more Subtle: If the Individual is partly Divine (that is, possessing a Soul, belonging to God) then it stands to reason that an affront against the individual is an affront against God.

E.g. If I mistreat you, I'm (by proxy) mistreating God. Therefore, because you are partly divine, I have to respect you as an individual. This seems self-evident to us now, but this was a revolutionary idea. Consider Torture (also a Human Universal) - banned in the UK in the 1600s - Why? Because Torturing you is Torturing (a part of) God.

Now, if I (and more importantly - the State) have to respect your Rights and Freedoms (God Given Rights - enter John Locke) - then you are free to maximize your potential, if you own the fruits of your own labour, you are free to take a risk - with the hopes of the ensuing reward.

None of these advancements are possible without the individual being recognized as having a degree of sovereignty about them. That idea of the Individual having an innate value comes from the Protestant line of thinking. Add in the concept of God-Given rights and you have the foundations for a prosperous society.

Perhaps due to being more industrially advanced than its competitors? Perhaps export of its poor and criminal (to places like Australia) also represented a solution to a then-current social problem.

The advancement was a by-product of the above.

Bringing of Stability, Rule of Law, Democracy, Education and Functioning Societies
You could have included "Christian Religion" in the above list as well.

Sure - and there are some benefits to that, some not so much.

The way you present them seems to paint a very rosy glow as to the motivations of British Empire. I think the key question to ask first is whether colonialisation of various countries by Britain was carried out primarily for:

- Enrichment of the UK Crown, UK mercantile aristocracy of the day, and the City of London
or
- Pursuit of the five factors you listed above.

Because I'd strongly argue the former (enrichment), with some of the latter factors (e.g. Rule of Law; Education; Democracy) simply being mechanisms used to try help achieve the former.

And in the case of the preceding three factors, the provision of "only just enough" of each - in order to facilitate operation of (and minimise disruption to) the exploitative process. After all, this was a "business" that was being run, not a benevolent society. And one didn't want to foster ideas of collaboration and independence amongst the natives.

I never said primarily because - but as above, a desire to bring order to the 'savages' of the world was very much in the public consciousness (take up the white mans burden...)

Now, I'll grant you that setting up a properly functioning society was a means to the end of what you refer to as 'exploitation' - but consider this, that process is what leads ultimately to what we enjoy in NZ.

It also happened to bring about the single greatest advancement in Human Rights in all of history, hell - it's the basis by which we have the concept of Human Rights.

And as a reminder no other country, prior or since has done it.

I happen to be quite passionate about this topic, because of certain groups that profess a hatred for Slavery and the Slave trade also possess a hatred of Empire and Colonization - And the fact is - No British Empire, No abolition of the Slave Trade. It was spawned in the unique breed of Thought that existed in the UK (distinct from Continental philosophy) and was translated from Philosophy, via Legal opinion, to Statute, then finally to armed enforcement.

Something of which, I happen to be very proud of.

[Viking01]

Let me first acknowledge that there were and are ulterior motives in the case of the British Empire, and that there were many many travesty in that regard. However, 'Civilizing the Savages' is/was a very salient factor in the process of Empire building.

.....[snip]....

I never said primarily because - but as above, a desire to bring order to the 'savages' of the world was very much in the public consciousness (take up the white mans burden...)

Now, I'll grant you that setting up a properly functioning society was a means to the end of what you refer to as 'exploitation' - but consider this, that process is what leads ultimately to what we enjoy in NZ.

It also happened to bring about the single greatest advancement in Human Rights in all of history, hell - it's the basis by which we have the concept of Human Rights.

And as a reminder no other country, prior or since has done it.

I happen to be quite passionate about this topic, because of certain groups that profess a hatred for Slavery and the Slave trade also possess a hatred of Empire and Colonization - And the fact is - No British Empire, No abolition of the Slave Trade. It was spawned in the unique breed of Thought that existed in the UK (distinct from Continental philosophy) and was translated from Philosophy, via Legal opinion, to Statute, then finally to armed enforcement.

Something of which, I happen to be very proud of.

Morning,
A very comprehensive reply. Thanks for the effort. Acknowledged.

Needless to say, I don't agree with some of what you've written (that doesn't make either of us right or wrong), but I'll not just rush into reply. Might take a day or three to craft a reply.

Cheers, Viking

[TheDemonLord]

Well, that was much sooner than I expected...

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/s...-b1911264.html

Edit:

Read today that they left the Military Dogs behind.

I am now twice as disgusted as I was previously

[sugilite:Me]

Well, Biden does not have any duty to protect people or dogs, so why the disgust?
Or is it just Democrats you hold to such principles?

[Viking01]

Well, that was much sooner than I expected...

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/s...-b1911264.html

Edit:

Read today that they left the Military Dogs behind.

I am now twice as disgusted as I was previously

Before you get too concerned or worked up:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/u...t-kabul-2021-8

https://www.rt.com/news/533571-kabul...ue-dogs-cages/

[TheDemonLord]

Well, Biden does not have any duty to protect people or dogs, so why the disgust?
Or is it just Democrats you hold to such principles?

Trump didn't leave US equipment and US Service dogs behind. I don't think ANY Republican would ever want to be seen to be abandoning troops (and yes, I'm including Military Dogs in that term).

But don't worry - Joe tells us it's been an 'Extraordinary Success'.

[TheDemonLord]

Before you get too concerned or worked up:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/u...t-kabul-2021-8

https://www.rt.com/news/533571-kabul...ue-dogs-cages/

I've seen different reports on that - with tweets from the Taliban showing the 'demiled' equipment being very easy to repair as they only had enough time to do superficial damage.

Regardless - I point to the flying Blackhawk. GG Biden WP.

[sugilite:Me]

Trump didn't leave US equipment and US Service dogs behind. I don't think ANY Republican would ever want to be seen to be abandoning troops (and yes, I'm including Military Dogs in that term).

But don't worry - Joe tells us it's been an 'Extraordinary Success'.

Trump did not exit at all, he just talked about it, but could not get it done. Perhaps if he had cut down the 285 days of golf to say 280, he could of had the time to sort Afghanistan out.
You are reading too much into Joes words, People from Delaware, like New Yorkers are well known for their bombastic style, things are always the best, the biggest, the most beautiful.

Trump leaves US allies the kurds to be slaughtered by the Turks, TDL oh well sucks to be a kurd. The US Army leaves some dogs behind, and TDL is disgusted. Hmmmmmm

[TheDemonLord]

Trump did not exit at all, he just talked about it, but could not get it done. Perhaps if he had cut down the 285 days of golf to say 280, he could of had the time to sort Afghanistan out.
You are reading too much into Joes words, People from Delaware, like New Yorkers are well known for their bombastic style, things are always the best, the biggest, the most beautiful.

Oh I know, he came up with a Plan, Joe changed it, now Joe has to wear the consequences. Nice on the comparison of Hyperbole, but unlike most of Trumps - there is no way the Afghanistan Clusterfuck can be called in any way shape or form a 'success' let alone an Extraordinary one.

Trump leaves US allies the kurds to be slaughtered by the Turks, TDL oh well sucks to be a kurd. The US Army leaves some dogs behind, and TDL is disgusted. Hmmmmmm

I've stated I disagreed with the non-interventionist policy - however in specific to the US Military:

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinio...tinue-to-make/

That's long been a US Military Virtue - sending living guys into the line of fire to retrieve the bodies of the Fallen.

Joe's administration has pissed all over nearly 200 years of Tradition. And this isn't my Opinion - this is the Opinion of every Ex and current Military member I've talked to/watch/interact with.

And since the buck stops with Joe (or, let's be real here - his handlers...)

[pritch]

Trump didn't leave US equipment and US Service dogs behind. I don't think ANY Republican would ever want to be seen to be abandoning troops (and yes, I'm including Military Dogs in that term).

But don't worry - Joe tells us it's been an 'Extraordinary Success'.

Trump abandoned US facilities in Syria to the Russians, and he did that to protect his Turkish real estate properties.

He released 5000 Taliban from prison so that they could invade Afghanistan. It's almost as if you have forgotten he invited the Taliban to Camp David around the anniversary of 9/11. Trump would have done what Biden did except he would have fucked it up.

It's sad but true that military dogs don't always fare well when forces depart, particularly if rabies is present in theatre. I have a vague recollection that NZ may have done something similar in the dim distant past but I can't be sure. Whatever, it's a bit rich to blame Biden personally for the death of the dogs. Trump hates dogs so that's a weird complaint for TDL to make.

Biden was very lethargic initally but once he woke up they moved massive numbers of people out and that can be described as a success. I see the Republicans are whinging about the "Americans" left behind. Most of them are Afghans or south Asians with dual citizenship. At the same time some Republicans cry their crocodile tears, others are claiming it's too dangerous to let "potential Boston bombers" into the country. Sadly they'll suck in a few simpletons.

[TheDemonLord]

Trump abandoned US facilities in Syria to the Russians, and he did that to protect his Turkish real estate properties.

Did he make Syria the 8th largest Army in the world?

No?

Then a bit of a false comparison.

He released 5000 Taliban from prison so that they could invade Afghanistan. It's almost as if you have forgotten he invited the Taliban to Camp David around the anniversary of 9/11. Trump would have done what Biden did except he would have fucked it up.

I do not believe it's possible to fuck it up more than Biden did. It's embarrassed the US internationally, The UK Government and Cabinet is so pissed off at the Biden administration that there have been leaks of some of the derogatory ways they refer to it (which is very uncommon for UK Politics), The Taliban are Meming the West on Twitter FFS about how they won. Add to that creating one of the best equipped Terrorist organizations in history. No, I cannot think how it could be fucked up any more than that.

I also do not believe Trump would have left all that equipment out there, he's a greedy money grubbing republican who hates foreigners, remember - he wouldn't want them getting a cent from the US, right?

But back to the Peace Deal - so, I've said I disagreed with it - however, it was one of Trump's policies to pull US troops out. However Trump's subsequent statement:

"People, Equipment, Military and Scorched Earth" (paraphrased) is the correct way to do it, you know it and I know - but Joe and the Woke Generals apparently forgot it - or were too busy planning on the 9/11 20th anniversary photo-op.

It's sad but true that military dogs don't always fare well when forces depart, particularly if rabies is present in theatre. I have a vague recollection that NZ may have done something similar in the dim distant past but I can't be sure. Whatever, it's a bit rich to blame Biden personally for the death of the dogs. Trump hates dogs so that's a weird complaint for TDL to make.

I didn't know Trump hates Dogs, nor do I care. I like Dogs, I particularly like Service Dogs - If the Withdrawal had been properly managed, they wouldn't have been left behind - they would at least be moved to a friendly base to wait out Quarantine.

Biden was very lethargic initally but once he woke up they moved massive numbers of people out and that can be described as a success. I see the Republicans are whinging about the "Americans" left behind. Most of them are Afghans or south Asians with dual citizenship. At the same time some Republicans cry their crocodile tears, others are claiming it's too dangerous to let "potential Boston bombers" into the country. Sadly they'll suck in a few simpletons.

Sleepy Joe was very Lethargic, however I disagree that he's woken up.

They may have moved massive numbers of people, but in no way can it be called a success - at Best you could call it managing a Clusterfuck, and that's as charitable as I can possibly be.

Then we've got to deal with the outright lie in the second paragraph. Republicans, Conservatives, National etc. have all been very clear on this principle:

If you have Served our country, then we (as a grateful nation) have an obligation to you.
If your service is such that it puts your life and your families life in danger (like if a terrorist organization with recently acquired US Military kit and a list of names going Door-to-door to execute those on the list) - Then we should evacuate you.

There's no contradiction or crocodile tears. If you're willing to die for our country, then you're welcome to live here: Français par le sang versé

[pritch]

Did he make Syria the 8th largest Army in the world?

No?

Then a bit of a false comparison.

No it's entirely apt. He just cut and ran. That's what you're trying to say he wouldn't have done in Afghanistan but you're completely ignoring his previous performance.

I do not believe it's possible to fuck it up more than Biden did. It's embarrassed the US internationally,

It was always going to be a huge international embarrasment, similar to the fall of Saigon. Biden started slow but he finished strong. Trump has never really exhibited much in the way of even marginal competence. In the words of his first Secretary of State, "He's a fucking moron."

I also do not believe Trump would have left all that equipment out there, he's a greedy money grubbing republican who hates foreigners, remember - he wouldn't want them getting a cent from the US, right?

Again, you have no concept of how much equipment was there.

I didn't know Trump hates Dogs, nor do I care. I like Dogs, I particularly like Service Dogs - If the Withdrawal had been properly managed, they wouldn't have been left behind - they would at least be moved to a friendly base to wait out Quarantine.

To accentuate something somebody did in a bad way he'd say they did it like a dog. This was not uncommon but the only conveniently available verified one is his pathetic speech about the death of Baghdadi.

I suspect that what happened to the dogs might not be uncommon. I'd be interested to know if the Brits took their dogs home.

There's no contradiction or crocodile tears.

That's just laughable.

Anyhoo...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Baghdadi+s...%3DOsBOWSjOLsE