How's this - I think they are ALL corrupt, all handing arms to the Taliban, while trying to reduce the rights of their citizens to arm themselves.
Arming the Taliban is not a matter of arming the people as such. It's about power politics - in this case the USA versus the USSR.
No. Presidents Reagan and Bush handed a bunch of arms over to the Taliban.
You have peculiar understanding of "handing over weapons"
What puzzles me is why did he not do what you claim he said. He spent four years as POTUS, right? In those four years he also was the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, and for two of them both houses of congress were in control of the party he lead.
Actually, that was Trump. In 2012 he said
I mentioned it here four days ago and I credited him for being right.What are we doing there? These people hate us. As soon as we leave it's all going to blow up anyway [...] The minute we leave, everything blows up and the worst guy gets it.
Olivia Troye is a Republican who worked for Pence inside the Trump administration. This is her response to right-wing media claims that Trump would have gotten everyone out safely.Cunt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 5:28 pmThey all did.
Biden just did it in a more grandiose way.
Trump did say how it should have gone. Sounded like a MUCH better plan than the one Biden enacted.
Approximately it was get the Americans out first, then the troops, then bomb the bases so they couldn't be used anymore.
Sounds like Biden had different motivations though.
There were cabinet mtgs about this during the Trump Admin where Stephen Miller would peddle his racist hysteria about Iraq & Afghanistan. He & his enablers across gov’t would undermine anyone who worked on solving the SIV issue by devastating the system at DHS & State.(1/7)
I tracked this issue personally in my role during my WH tenure. Pence was fully aware of the problem. We got nowhere on it because Trump/S. Miller had watchdogs in place at DOJ, DHS, State & security agencies that made an already cumbersome SIV process even more challenging.(2/7)
I met w/ numerous external organizations during my White House tenure who advocated for refugees & pleaded for help in getting US allies through the process. I got the phone calls & letters as the homeland security & CT advisor to Pence…(3/7)
The system wouldn’t budge, regardless of how much this was argued about in National Security Council mtgs. The Pentagon weighed in saying we needed to get these allies through the process-Mattis/others sent memos. We all knew the urgency but the resources had been depleted.(4/7)
The fear of people across the Trump Admin to counter these enablers was palpable. There were numerous behind closed door meetings held-strategizing how to navigate this issue. The Trump Admin had FOUR years…(5/7)
..Trump had FOUR years-while putting this plan in place-to evacuate these Afghan allies who were the lifelines for many of us who spent time in Afghanistan. They’d been waiting a long time. The process slowed to a trickle for reviews/other “priorities”-then came to a halt.(6/7)
To people like Ben Domenech, JD Vance & others who are making blanket statements & pushing narratives of convenience on Afganistan-especially on the SIV/allies issue-please, just stop. Your comments are uninformed & also hurtful. We see right through you.(7/8)
Grateful for everyone advocating the urgency of getting our allies evacuated out of Afghanistan ASAP & those who are doing everything they can to help. It’s the least we can do for these individuals & it’s a matter of national security. The world is watching.(8/8)
Cunt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 1:39 amHow's this - I think they are ALL corrupt, all handing arms to the Taliban, while trying to reduce the rights of their citizens to arm themselves.
It's hilarious and horrible.
Obama, Trump and Biden all pointing fingers at each other, while Bush sits back laughing.
So, you attack Biden...
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
