United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[History Learner]

Yeah, the withdrawal from Afghanistan went really well and was not a huge disaster they resulted in many unnecessary deaths and massive loss of materiel. People just happen to fall off of planes when taking off, that's just a regular thing, for example. While leaving wasn't wrong, boy howdy was this done wrong.

Yeah, it was done great, I don't see any real issues there and I find these criticisms invalid on all levels. The Taliban captured Blackhawks, the horror! It's just a Boomer take with no real merit in the real world. Everything else could not have been prevented at all; you're supposed to have the foresight to know there would be dumb Afghans try to hold onto planes like Tom Cruise lol?

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah, it was done great, I don't see any real issues there and I find these criticisms invalid on all levels. The Taliban captured Blackhawks, the horror! It's just a Boomer take with no real merit in the real world. Everything else could not have been prevented at all; you're supposed to have the foresight to know there would be dumb Afghans try to hold onto planes like Tom Cruise lol?

So...leaving Americans could not have been prevented? Keeping Baghram would not have changed things? Sending forces out to secure Kabulbwould not have?
I don't care about the equipment, the people matter

 

[History Learner]

So...leaving Americans could not have been prevented? Keeping Baghram would not have changed things? Sending forces out to secure Kabulbwould not have?
I don't care about the equipment, the people matter

Yeah it would've fixed nothing and resulted in more deaths. As for the people left behind, for the most part they chose it and honestly most of them are dual citizens or part of NGOs; fuck 'em in the latter case.

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah it would've fixed nothing and resulted in more deaths. As for the people left behind, for the most part they chose it and honestly most of them are dual citizens or part of NGOs; fuck 'em in the latter case.

Uh...
It would have fixed a lot.
Add in we should have followed trumps plan and none of this would have happend.

Bagram for one is more defensible and no bombs would be able to get as close.
Two, more airplanes could have been flown on...

 

[The Whispering Monk]

@History Learner

Well...I disagree with all almost all those points, but I won't derails this thread.

As for Afghanistan...Yup, we should have left. The problem was the When, Where and How were so botched by Biden and his team that it's downright flagrant.

 

[History Learner]

Uh...
It would have fixed a lot.
Add in we should have followed trumps plan and none of this would have happend.

Bagram for one is more defensible and no bombs would be able to get as close.
Two, more airplanes could have been flown on...

It would've fixed nothing and would've resulted in the Taliban most likely inflicting hundreds of U.S. casualties and making this more of a disaster. As it were, this was Trump's plan; Biden was following the Doha Agreement and the alterations he made basically were to extend it, in that the pullout was supposed to be done in May instead of delaying it.

Bagram is an absolutely useless stance I've seen bandied about, given it was far from Kabul and already surrounded by the Taliban; do you really think they would let us run convoys back and for all the way from Kabul lol? This isn't getting into the fact Bagram is also 14 square miles, meaning we would've had to send in vastly more troops to secure the correspondingly larger security perimeter.

 

[Zachowon]

It would've fixed nothing and would've resulted in the Taliban most likely inflicting hundreds of U.S. casualties and making this more of a disaster. As it were, this was Trump's plan; Biden was following the Doha Agreement and the alterations he made basically were to extend it, in that the pullout was supposed to be done in May instead of delaying it.

Bagram is an absolutely useless stance I've seen bandied about, given it was far from Kabul and already surrounded by the Taliban; do you really think they would let us run convoys back and for all the way from Kabul lol? This isn't getting into the fact Bagram is also 14 square miles, meaning we would've had to send in vastly more troops to secure the correspondingly larger security perimeter.

Bagram has never been over run in the entirety we have had it.
Every military mind has agreed, qell besides the joint chiefs, that Bagram was the point.
Trumps plan was to leave A-stan at the start of summer, when the Taliban are not fully ready for combat..like they are by July....
It was also an agreement made with the Taliban last year. It also would have been better and less people, as in no Americans would have died.

 

[History Learner]

Bagram has never been over run in the entirety we have had it.
Every military mind has agreed, qell besides the joint chiefs, that Bagram was the point.
Trumps plan was to leave A-stan at the start of summer, when the Taliban are not fully ready for combat..like they are by July....
It was also an agreement made with the Taliban last year. It also would have been better and less people, as in no Americans would have died.

You'll also recall these same military minds lost Afghanistan to the Taliban, so maybe they aren't as smart as you want to think? And yes, Bagram was never overrun....when we had tens of thousands of troops in country or the ANSDF did in collaboration with us. By May, the U.S. was down to 3,500 or so and, IIRC, the Doha Deal signed by Trump required us to abandon Bagram in a timely fashion. You'll also recall the Taliban weren't ready for combat in early Summer because they were actually combat ready in April, when they started the offensive.

I don't think you know the basics of what happened, like the fact the Doha Agreement with the Taliban was not binding with ISKP for rather obvious reasons.

 

[Bacle]

 

[Zachowon]

......so.
Every business should claim all thier workers are immigrants.

 

[Airedale260]

Well Airdale, there is one way...

Other than a Plan D situation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not saying it's going to happen...but it's been on the books since the 1950s.

Yeah but so too are the Espionage Act and the Logan Act. It may be on the books but that doesn't mean it works. Throughout history, legitimacy has been shown to be a far more powerful force than being just a law on a book.

Airdale likes to pretend we don't have a uniparty and that the system isn't wholly compromised by said uniparty.

It's going to take a lot more America First boys in local positions before said uniparty is broken and we can begin fixing the institutions or pulling them down and replacing them.

Either way this is a ground up 10-30 year deal. Things aren't going to get better for a good while and I honestly do expect coof camps soon at this point with the GOPe talking about how real conservatives get the numbers on their wrists.

Working our way through that is going to take local strong men.

We need less weaklings and more right wing Huey Longs

You know, when I criticize people without responding I tag them so they know about it. I’m an adult, I can take criticism.

Not to mention that as far as I can tell based on your statements, the "uniparty" is only a thing insofar as it means "People who actually believe that the rules mean what they say, and don't break them because if they can, why can’t I?” Our system of government was and is deliberately designed to thwart strongmen. So as much as you whine about it, that’s a feature, because it means that someone like Biden can’t be one (despite that being EXACTLY what he’s trying to do at the moment). Or do you approve of his methods?

Because this is exactly what happens in strongman systems. And it sure as hell isn’t a conservative position to want to burn down the system we’ve had for over 230 years. Or blatantly violate the Constitution.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

You know, when I criticize people without responding I tag them so they know about it. I’m an adult, I can take criticism.

Weeeaakkk

Not to mention that as far as I can tell based on your statements, the "uniparty" is only a thing insofar as it means "People who actually believe that the rules mean what they say, and don't break them because if they can, why can’t I?” Our system of government was and is deliberately designed to thwart strongmen. So as much as you whine about it, that’s a feature, because it means that someone like Biden can’t be one (despite that being EXACTLY what he’s trying to do at the moment). Or do you approve of his methods?

Because this is exactly what happens in strongman systems. And it sure as hell isn’t a conservative position to want to burn down the system we’ve had for over 230 years. Or blatantly violate the Constitution.

Yeah you don't live on planet earth at all, if you're legitimately arguing that we aren't under a junta of bureaucrats who do whatever the hell they want and are helped in their "strong man" tactics by a corrupt judicial system and a compromised opposition party.


Being a conservative in modern America just means accommodating tyranny while patting yourself on the back for it.

I'm much more in favor of local Sherrif's offices being better funded by their communities. They actually have more authority as a result of their makeup (at least here in Texas) than the Police Departments do.

The only issue is that local sheriffs can form cartels but then again that's still better than legions of Feds.

 

[LTR]

Thread about Biden's policies and intentions and how Socialist they are has been pruned off to this thread:

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/bidens-ideas-and-policies-and-socialism.6279/

 

[Terthna]

As I said, I am way past giving these people the benefit of the doubt and good faith.

This is the sort of over the top action that looks good on paper but does not hold up to any sort of actual scrutiny or introspection. As Immortal said if business start keeping track of this they will just flood themselves with "suspects". Anyone with a serious desired to make a IED probably already has most of that shit, can use gunpowder to spice it up, and probably has enough common sense to buy shit in different stores on different days as to not be obvious.

No to mention the USA doesn't really have a tradition of IEDs, they do shootings there. This seems like a issues of severely misunderstanding the "threat" they are facing. It's far more likely the "terror" will be people marching on local places and demanding they stop this shit at gunpoint than some IED and message with it.

Actually, IEDs have an extensive history of use in the United States:

Days of Rage

“People have completely forgotten that in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States.” — Max Noel, FBI (ret.) Recently, I had my head torn off by a b…

status451.com

It's just that it's mostly a tradition specific to left-wing extremists, so this is likely just them projecting again.

 

[Vaermina]

Yeah it would've fixed nothing and resulted in more deaths. As for the people left behind, for the most part they chose it and honestly most of them are dual citizens or part of NGOs; fuck 'em in the latter case.

That's the blatantly false narrative being pushed by the Biden White House... Yes...

 

[LordsFire]

Yeah, it was done great, I don't see any real issues there and I find these criticisms invalid on all levels.

You know, before this post, I thought you were someone starting from poor premises, but using logical conclusions therefrom.

At this point, it's clear that you are just someone who eats the party line so quickly you can't even tell what it tastes like. I don't even know how to engage with someone who is so far down the rabbit hole as this.

 

[49ersfootball]

If we get Trump again, or someone willing to listen to him, we would basically tell them either release them or face a quick destruction, and threaten Pakistan as well

If Trump runs again & somehow pulls it off in 2024, he would be term limited in 2028.

 

[49ersfootball]

So there are a couple big problems with that...

1) The Taliban could just go "Fuck you" and immediately kill every hostage they have. Which ends the hostage crisis, sure, but in a way that would immediately backfire and make Biden look like a genius. Rule #1 in hostage negotiations is you don't do anything that puts the hostages at further risk of harm.

2) Going to war with Afghanistan again because we fucked up is not going to be popular with the American public. They're pissed off at Biden, but launching a full-scale war four years after the evacuation fuckup is not going to be popular, especially when all it does is result in more dead American hostages. You know, the thing we really want to prevent?

3) Pakistan has nukes. Whether they'd slip one to al-Qaeda or the Taliban is unknown, but if we threaten them with annihilation I can think of plenty of elements in their country that would go "You know what, fuck America" and either sneak a nuke into a major American city or else hit a nearby target like Diego Garcia or even somewhere in India out of spite.

Threatening to do mean things isn't actually an effective negotiating tactic. Threatening outright war with countries that aren't overtly* hostile is also a really good way to get one's ass voted out of office in the next election if not impeached.

Trying the "tough guy" approach sounds nice and all, bur reality has a way of intruding on such things. I get you're still young and don't understand these things, but maybe consider that there's some very good reasons that no serious individual on the right is suggesting we actually do this, because the Law of Unintended Consequences is a very real and very unforgiving thing.

Let's not forget about the deep-seated hostilities between Pakistan & India..

 

[The Original Sixth]

Oh gee I wonder why people might be acting rude towards Zachowon, who goes from months of being anti-vax to "come on guys just get the vax," once the federal government mandates it...who's more concerned about changing base names (said he'd leave the military over it,) than he is forcing the entire country to take a medication they don't want.

Yeah. As soon as the fed mandates it, he's pro-vax.

Zach will be loading you onto the trains headed for the gulags like "come on guys it's just orders, they said the gulags aren't that bad, why don't you just work? I promise I'd do something if they said to shoot civilians though"

I get the idea that he's trying to be loyal, but you can have principles and still be loyal. Zach has no principles. He will change his opinion on a dime to match the military/fed.

Yeah, we probably do have glowie informants on here. They probably aren't as secret as you think. Zach is probably forwarding on the questionable stuff to his bosses anyways.

Zach's primary function here seems to be running cover for the fed and military, and likely feeding intelligence back to them.

And you know what, I don't WANT an infraction from the mods here. I've never had one before, but yeah, I'm calling out Zach's rapid change in opinion just to stick up for Joe fucking Biden's authoritarian vaccine mandates. He went from months of anti-vax to "just take your vaccine" in like an hour, because Joe Biden said to. I am going to call that out, and I've attempted to be polite about it. However, I've lost all respect for Zachowon today.

Or maybe...he was already in the process of changing his mind?

Seriously, I don't understand why people are so upset over getting a needle jabbed into their arm.

 

[Zachowon]

Or maybe...he was already in the process of changing his mind?

Seriously, I don't understand why people are so upset over getting a needle jabbed into their arm.

I am not for the vax.
I am just of it, get it if you want, if you don't. Don't.
I AM GOING TO HAVE TOO, so I have no ground to stand on for saying DONT GET IT!!