Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

What exactly is the alternative? If 20 years of US money, weapons, training, troops, advice and air strikes couldn’t create stability, what are we supposed to do? Leave troops posted in Afghanistan for eternity? Make them a US territory or protectorate?

The US has always been in Afghanistan as a deterrent to someone else controlling it. First Russia, then the Taliban. And the rest of the democratic nations of the world? None are willing to take primary responsibility for their survival.

It sucks that a relatively modern quasi democracy has fallen to a backward militant religious ideology, but frankly, us being there has never fixed, solved or prevented anything. We should have never been there, to either block someone else from adding Afghanistan to their power bloc, or seeking revenge for terrorist attacks against us.

The idea that we’d ever wipe out the Taliban was a fantasy, and due to corruption and tribal blood ties undercutting legitimate governance, true political stability was similarly never within their grasp.

[Frumple]

To bring us back on topic, evidently we're evaccing the embassy in Kabul as part of preparation to pull out of Afghanistan a bit more, or something?

The withdrawal of US and NATO troops is turning out to be a horrible mistake. 20 years of training and arming the Afghan army, only to have the Taliban mostly waltz all over them.

From what I've been picking up, we basically didn't do that, though. It was more like twenty years of sitting around with our collective thumbs up our asses doing nothing much useful after shitting on everything. Not so much a ball dropped as a ball jammed into a buster bunker and launched at the earth's core, with a chufty side serving of massive corruption and incompetence, a rare bit of the latter well meaning.

At least we're finally pulling our dick out the mousetrap we built, I guess. Sucks pretty hard(/even harder) for Afghanistan, though

[feelotraveller]

Ah, the Taliban, yet another monster the US created and lost control of in the Middle East:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

The US government covertly provided violent schoolbooks filled with militant Islamic teachings and jihad and images of weapons and soldiers in an effort to inculcate in children anti-Soviet insurgency and hate for foreigners. The Taliban used the American textbooks but scratched out human faces in keeping with strict fundamentalist interpretation. The United States Agency for International Development gave millions of dollars to the University of Nebraska at Omaha in the 1980s to develop and publish the textbooks in local languages.

It's fantastic that the troops are finally leaving. A great pity about another festering mess America has left behind in its wake.  At least the Saudi's got the fuck out much earlier; Iran can hardly be expected to play much of a role in the reconstruction given the current global politic; and Pakistan, well actually, Pakistan is trying to the best of its ability to gain a more or less peaceful/somewhat less violent self-determination for Afghanistan.  What kind of, at best, facile empty thing is democracy without self-determination after all?  Certainly nothing when forced at gunpoint.

[Iduno]

What exactly is the alternative? If 20 years of US money, weapons, training, troops, advice and air strikes couldn’t create stability, what are we supposed to do? Leave troops posted in Afghanistan for eternity? Make them a US territory or protectorate?

The US has always been in Afghanistan as a deterrent to someone else controlling it. First Russia, then the Taliban. And the rest of the democratic nations of the world? None are willing to take primary responsibility for their survival.

It sucks that a relatively modern quasi democracy has fallen to a backward militant religious ideology, but frankly, us being there has never fixed, solved or prevented anything. We should have never been there, to either block someone else from adding Afghanistan to their power bloc, or seeking revenge for terrorist attacks against us.

The idea that we’d ever wipe out the Taliban was a fantasy, and due to corruption and tribal blood ties undercutting legitimate governance, true political stability was similarly never within their grasp.

I think probably supporting the Taliban in the first place was a poor plan (as with all of our support of corrupt, violent, and far-fight regimes), and the way we pushed the anti-Taliban government to be against their own people wasn't helpful. Generally making terrorists the most reasonable people means you've made some major mistakes. I mean, Taliban is gaining power as US-backed soldiers are getting sick, because "American Jesus will protect you from illness" is an idiotic plan.

[Eschar]

yeah those are 3 pretty major factors.

Special mention for Fox being classified as an 'entertainment' outlet, not a news outlet, so they essentially get a free pass to say whatever they want.

lol That's just wild. Fox News really is a scourge.

This particular story is untrue.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/

Of course, their "our lawyers will quietly argue that no reasonable person would use our show hosts as a source of facts, but publicly we'll continue to air said hosts in a completely serious manner" strategy has the same effect.

[Naturegirl1999]

yeah those are 3 pretty major factors.

Special mention for Fox being classified as an 'entertainment' outlet, not a news outlet, so they essentially get a free pass to say whatever they want.

lol That's just wild. Fox News really is a scourge.

This particular story is untrue.

It still thinks itself news, the liars. To be clear, Snopes is the fact checkers, I’m calling FoOX NEWS the liars for claiming to still be news

[Eschar]

Yes, also note my edit

[Micro102]

yeah those are 3 pretty major factors.

Special mention for Fox being classified as an 'entertainment' outlet, not a news outlet, so they essentially get a free pass to say whatever they want.

lol That's just wild. Fox News really is a scourge.

This particular story is untrue.

Yep, there is no was to officially classify these things as far as I know. But we get pretty close when FOX lawyers successfully argue that no one could possible believe Tucker Carlson because of how ridiculous everything he says is. It's effectively the same. "We are so unbelievable that we are allowed to claim anything is happening while calling ourselves news".

Aaaand Ninja'd

[Naturegirl1999]

Yes, also note my edit

Ah, great timing it seems

[Lord Shonus]

There's no legal obligation for news organizations to say or not say anything, as long as they don't fall into libel territory or violate government secrecy acts. If CNN were to start holding daily briefings on the invasion of the mole people from Pellucidar, they'd have every legal righ to do so. They'd probably lose their viewership and become a laughingstock, but there'd be no possibility of the government doing anything.

The 1st Amendment prevents the government from regulating the news in any way, including an attempt to force them to tell the truth. This is because "the only truth is what we say the truth is" is the primary means of control exercised by a totalitarian government.

[Eschar]

I mean, I didn't say they were legally in the wrong, nor did I say a thing about the First Amendment.

[Micro102]

There's no legal obligation for news organizations to say or not say anything, as long as they don't fall into libel territory or violate government secrecy acts. If CNN were to start holding daily briefings on the invasion of the mole people from Pellucidar, they'd have every legal righ to do so. They'd probably lose their viewership and become a laughingstock, but there'd be no possibility of the government doing anything.

The 1st Amendment prevents the government from regulating the news in any way, including an attempt to force them to tell the truth. This is because "the only truth is what we say the truth is" is the primary means of control exercised by a totalitarian government.

There was the fairness doctrine that was hanging around for about 40 years until it was removed by the FCC (not the SCOTUS). The SCOTUS even defended it at least once, so I would say the government has already decided that the first amendment does not prevent any regulation.

[Starver]

Interesting to consider that Charlie Wilson's War, with its postscript "what (did not) happen next" commentary was released in 2007.


(On the Fox thing, it is true that they dropped the "Fair And Balanced" motto, though arguably a while after it had already become particularly unrepresentative, in a particularly long slide that may or not have originated from the '87 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine itself.)

((7 messages while I was checking the date of the FD! Hot topic? I'll read them in a moment, but putting this out before it increases...))

[Zangi]

Ah, pity about it not being true, but yea, still essentially what reality is.

Lies and obfuscation are still given huge platforms in the public conscious.  Such is our Murrican right.

[StrawBarrel]

Ok that snopes article was good clarification. The entertainment angle is specifically from Fox News lawyers defending Tucker Carlson.