What's new

Donald Trump : Decision to go into Afghanistan the "worst decision in the history of our country"

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,978
Donald Trump : Decision to go into Afghanistan the "worst decision in the history of our country"

In an exclusive interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that's just aired in the US, former president Donald Trump called the decision to go into Afghanistan the "worst decision in the history of our country".

"We've destroyed the Middle East... it cost us trilllions of dollars, millions of lives and it's no different than it was - it's much worse because you have to rebuild it, it's been blown to pieces," he said.

"To get stuck in there was like quicksand."

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">TRUMP: "It was a horrible decision going into the Middle East. I know the Bush family will not be happy, but I believe it was the worst decision in the history of our country when we decided to go into the Middle East." <a href="https://t.co/PW8XXoHi7h">pic.twitter.com/PW8XXoHi7h</a></p>— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1427809309551996936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 18, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
In Afghanistan the world is witnessing disastrous consequences associated with a rare area of agreement between President Biden and his predecessor, Donald Trump.

Both presidents saw the 20-year war in the remote and rugged country as an unwelcome inheritance and an albatross. For Trump it was the prime example of the "forever wars" he promised to end, a salient promise of his "America First" campaign. Frustrated in his initial efforts to truncate the U.S. mission, Trump finally bypassed the Afghan government to negotiate directly with the Taliban. The deal with them that he signed on Feb. 29, 2020 promised to pull all U.S. troops out by May 1, 2021.

Biden did not reverse this course when he took office, although he did push back the pull-out to September. He wanted more time to remove U.S. forces and, if necessary, evacuate U.S. civilians as well as Afghan interpreters and others who helped the U.S. war effort. He was advised he would have a period of weeks or months to do this after September.

It turned out, the Taliban had a schedule of their own.

It also turned out that the Afghan army the U.S. built, trained and equipped had been largely abandoned by its own government. Reportedly left without food and other supplies, much of the army simply ceded the battlefield to the Taliban, first in the hinterlands, then in the towns, then in the cities. There seemed to be little loyalty to the elected Afghan government, whose leader Ashraf Ghani fled the country before the Taliban entered the capital and took over his palace.

So when we thought we had months to get out, we had weeks. When we thought we had weeks, we had days. When we thought we still had a few days, we had hours.

The Taliban did not fight their way into Kabul; they drove in. There were commuters in American cities who found it harder driving in to work the next day.

It seems no one foresaw all this happening this fast.

But someone has to deal with the general failure. Someone has to cope with the hundreds of Americans and international workers still in Afghanistan who want to go their home countries — and untold thousands of Afghans who want to leave theirs.

Biden's "America First" moment?

Biden stood up on Monday and said "the buck stops here." But he made clear he thought that buck had been passed to him by plenty of other people. He acknowledged that the U.S. footprint was now confined to the Hamid Karzai International Airport. He seemed stunned by the scenes of chaos there, the tarmac awash with would-be refugees, some so desperate they clung to an aircraft as it took off.

Yet Biden remained adamant about getting out of Afghanistan, even given the catastrophe on view on screens the world over.

Four presidents over two decades have found themselves mired in Afghanistan, wondering when they might get out. Biden grasped the nettle like no other. And he may well face the political consequences each of his predecessors managed to sidestep.

President George W. Bush first sent troops to overthrow the Taliban then in power after they had harbored al-Qaida prior to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Thereafter, his attention turned to invading Iraq and a larger struggle there. But he kept enough troops in Afghanistan to keep the lid on and move toward building an indigenous army and democracy (while denying it was "nation building").

Elected in 2008, Barack Obama surged the U.S. fighting force to more than 90,000 in his first term, then drew it down aggressively after winning his second. Biden, his vice president, was opposed to the build-up and favored the drawdown.

Neither Bush nor Obama wanted "Who lost Afghanistan?" questions to haunt their own reelection prospects. And indeed, they did not.

Trump, by contrast, seemed more anxious about voters asking why the U.S. had not left Afghanistan.

In his 2020 book The Room Where It Happened, John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser in 2018 and 2019, depicts Trump as determined to deal with the Taliban. He recalls Trump trying to bring Taliban leaders to Camp David for negotiations in September 2019, eventually dropping that plan, and then reviving its outline in what became the Feb. 29, 2020 agreement.

"This deal is entirely Trump's," Bolton wrote of that agreement. "Time will tell who is right, and the full effects of the deal may not become apparent until after Trump leaves office. But there should be no mistaking this reality: Trump will be responsible for the consequences, politically and militarily."

Bolton, long known as a hardliner in previous Republican administrations, has since expressed his scorn for Biden's policy and Trump's, in the wake of events in Kabul.

H.R. McMaster, a retired Army general who preceded Bolton as national security adviser, has also linked the Trump and Biden approaches to Afghanistan. He told a Wilson Center interviewer on Aug. 12 that a "sound strategy" he helped devise for Afghanistan in 2017 had been "abandoned" in "capitulation negotiations conducted under Ambassador [Zalmay] Khalilzad" — Trump's special envoy to Afghanistan who was retained in that role by the Biden administration.

So intense was Trump's intention to withdraw that he persisted even after the 2020 election. According to a report published by Axios in May, Trump signed a memo in November that would have withdrawn all U.S. troops by mid-January (just five days before his term was to end). His top national security team, civilian and military, persuaded him not to issue the order but to leave the withdrawal date at May 1.

Trump has since said none of the current mayhem in Kabul would be happening if he were still president. Researchers will need to ascertain how many exit visas for Afghans had already been arranged before Trump left office, or what sort of procedures he might have had in place for Americans and Afghans wishing to leave. But lacking such evidence, and given Trump's timetable and concessions made to the Taliban, it is easier to imagine the current situation happening that much sooner.

Trump in fact had complained at his June 26 rally in Ohio that the Biden administration was dragging its feet and ought to get out faster.

Fumbling at the goal line?

There is a case to be made that Biden is less responsible for this fiasco than any of the previous three presidents. But he is the one who fumbled at the goal line, as it were, at the crucial moment of the game from the perspective of media and politics.

While an Economist/YouGov poll this June found only 1 American in 5 opposed to the U.S. withdrawing from Afghanistan, a Morning Consult survey that followed the fall of Kabul found a plurality of 45% opposed to withdrawal if it meant a Taliban takeover.

It can also be said that by the time Biden was carrying the ball, it was more like being left holding the bag.

"I am now the fourth American president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan — two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth," he said. "It is time for American troops to come home."

Biden made that statement on April 14, with Trump's May 1 deadline looming. He repeated the vow about passing the responsibility in his speech on Monday.

There was in that "time to come home" phrase a faint, distant echo of "come home, America" — the campaign theme of presidential nominee George McGovern, who ran against the Vietnam War in 1972 and lost 49 states.

It was not a good year for Democrats on the ballot, but one who won was a 29-year-old Senate candidate in Delaware who did not make a major issue of the war. The young Joe Biden had not been a campus activist in his years at the University of Delaware or at Syracuse Law School. "I didn't march," he would recall later. "I ran for office."

Just two years later, still in his first Senate term, Biden watched with the nation as the long war in Vietnam ended in debacle. Helicopters plucked the last U.S. military and civilians from a rooftop in Saigon as the city fell, ending a civil war in which the U.S. had backed the South Vietnamese government against the communist regime of North Vietnam and its guerilla allies, the Viet Cong.

American support for Saigon had been waning for years, with the U.S. ending the draft after 1972 and leaving the fighting to the Vietnamese. When left on its own, the South Vietnamese army was routed in a matter of months. Many thousands of Vietnamese who had helped the U.S. were left behind, with some escaping in desperately overloaded ships. Many of these "boat people" were picked up by U.S. Navy vessels; others made it to port in surrounding countries. Eventually, many came to the U.S. where they and their descendants now number well over a million.

Biden bookends: Vietnam and son Beau

When Saigon fell, none of the U.S. presidents who had made commitments to Vietnam was on hand to bear the consequences. Dwight Eisenhower, who sided with the French colonialists against the Vietnamese in the 1950s, was long dead. So was John F. Kennedy, who inherited the war but felt he had to extend it and expand the U.S. commitment, and Lyndon B. Johnson, who had escalated the war far beyond his predecessors. Richard Nixon, still alive, had resigned on the brink of impeachment over the Watergate scandal.

President Gerald Ford had been in office less than nine months when Saigon fell in April of 1975. He had been preoccupied with domestic matters and been assured the Saigon government could hold on a while longer. He was misinformed. But relatively few blamed him, even in the wake of a disastrous end to the long struggle and a humiliating exit for the U.S. His approval in the Gallup Poll did not seem to suffer, and a military rescue of U.S. seamen captured off Cambodia's coast two weeks later helped boost him to more than 50% approval at the end of May.

The other factor that may have influenced Biden on Afghanistan is more personal. Some who heard Biden speak on Monday were surprised he did not mention his son, Beau Biden, who was deployed to the Iraq War in 2008.

"I don't want him going," his father said at the time, "But I tell you what, I don't want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years, and so how we leave makes a big difference."

Beau Biden died of brain cancer in 2015, and his father has speculated at times about the effects of toxic chemicals his son encountered while in the war theater.

As vice president, Biden was reported to have told a colleague that he did not want his son going to Afghanistan if the mission was to make sure it was safe for girls to go to school. (The Taliban is notorious for denying women the most basic rights.)

The president has often made mention of the impact his son's life and death have had on him. And while such things as personal loss — or the Vietnam era experience — cannot be measured precisely, neither can they be counted out.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/18/1028...deed-the-trump-biden-consensus-on-afghanistan
 
Forcing democracy on illiterate tribals will never work. USA must have spent the past 20 years in educating Middle East and Afghanistan tribal areas. That would have helped them more than creating an Afghan army.
 
Forcing democracy on illiterate tribals will never work. USA must have spent the past 20 years in educating Middle East and Afghanistan tribal areas. That would have helped them more than creating an Afghan army.

The US could easily change the world, by pouring all the trillions on war on real education instead and after 20 years the new generation will reject extremism.

If that had happened these people who are picking up arms to fight for afganistan would probably be scientists and doctors fighting covid.

The us could easily do it, forcing countries through sanctions to better educate there masses, but they dont, because there interests lay with capitalism that needs the bad guys.
 
Hmmmmm

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">PM <a href="https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ImranKhanPTI</a>, for 20 years, consistently urged the international community that there was no military solution in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Afghanistan?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Afghanistan</a>, and that negotiated political settlement was the only way forward. <a href="https://t.co/lXpDkGRohQ">pic.twitter.com/lXpDkGRohQ</a></p>— Prime Minister's Office, Pakistan (@PakPMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/PakPMO/status/1428064138291417090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 18, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
If 9/11 happened on his watch then this idiot would have nuked Afghanistan. All his supporters would have been baying for blood.
 
Forcing democracy on illiterate tribals will never work. USA must have spent the past 20 years in educating Middle East and Afghanistan tribal areas. That would have helped them more than creating an Afghan army.

Seeing the way things are going in America, they are better off worrying about their own illiterates and democracy
 
Seeing how much America spent in Afghanistan everyone there should be close to being a millionaire. Instead we have a dirt poor country not knowing what is ahead for them. Same in the Middle East where America has made millions of more terrorists then before. America needs to respect that not everyone wants democracy. This does not mean that society is wrong or illiterate.
 
Yes, that’s why he dropped a MOAB in Afghanistan.

Since terrorists were the target, I can't see what was wrong here.

Dont you want punishment for people who threatens the existence of others?

Are you a terrorist sympatheizer?
 
Seeing how much America spent in Afghanistan everyone there should be close to being a millionaire. Instead we have a dirt poor country not knowing what is ahead for them. Same in the Middle East where America has made millions of more terrorists then before. America needs to respect that not everyone wants democracy. This does not mean that society is wrong or illiterate.

Who in a country decides what system people wants?
 
Since terrorists were the target, I can't see what was wrong here.

Dont you want punishment for people who threatens the existence of others?

Are you a terrorist sympatheizer?

By the same token Yogi Adityanath and Modi should be bombed, no?
 
By the same token Yogi Adityanath and Modi should be bombed, no?

A question in reply of a question. That's not how a discussion goes.

I asked a question which should be answered first and then I will proceed with your questions.
 
A question in reply of a question. That's not how a discussion goes.

I asked a question which should be answered first and then I will proceed with your questions.

You’re saying Trump is against violence in reply to a statement that he would have hypothetically nuked Afghanistan if he were president at the time of 9/11. Then in defence of Trump dropping a MOAB in Afghanistan you say it’s justified because terrorists were the target. So which one is it? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
 
You’re saying Trump is against violence in reply to a statement that he would have hypothetically nuked Afghanistan if he were president at the time of 9/11. Then in defence of Trump dropping a MOAB in Afghanistan you say it’s justified because terrorists were the target. So which one is it? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Two different entities here.

Afghanistan is a entity.

And there's a subset of people who are terrorist in Afghanistan.

Just because someone takes stand against latter set, that doesn't mean he is standing against former.

As for example, you robbed me and I beat you up. But beating up doesn't mean I am initiating some kind of hatred against Muslims but I beat you up because you robbed me.

The lack of comprehending sentences is surprising here. It's like I am teaching kindergarten kids.
 
Last edited:
Trump also did away with Obama's policy of disclosing each and every drone attack which was dispicable.

But just concentrating on Trumps statement, the guys is a hypocrite of the highest order.
For ten years prior to his election victory in 2016 he defended the Iranians and called out Saudi Wahhabism as the exporter of terrorism. He went on mutilple news channels and spoke about Wahhabism being the real danger to the world and then did a 180 degree turn once he came into power.

He also assinated an Iranian general who was instrumental against fighting back ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Where’s your evidence that Trump is against violence?

I don't understand this type of discussion where if you ask someone about sources for their claims, they will just reply with what's yours for your opposition?

This is not anywhere a constructive discussion and it's just making argument for sake of argument. If you want to go in this route, this is just waste of time and efforts.

Coming back to track, I have asked you about evidence.

Either you will provide or you won't.

If you will provide, then I'll proceed with my sources in order to answer your questions.

Otherwise, we can save both of our time and stop here.
 
So for the record, the thread is not exclusively about Afghanistan but also includes the Middle East
 
I don't understand this type of discussion where if you ask someone about sources for their claims, they will just reply with what's yours for your opposition?

This is not anywhere a constructive discussion and it's just making argument for sake of argument. If you want to go in this route, this is just waste of time and efforts.

Coming back to track, I have asked you about evidence.

Either you will provide or you won't.

If you will provide, then I'll proceed with my sources in order to answer your questions.

Otherwise, we can save both of our time and stop here.

You made an unqualified statement. I responded with an unqualified statement. You asked for qualification. I provided it. I asked you for qualification but you did not provide it.
 
The subject of the thread is Afghanistan. The article mixes other middle east countries.
You said Trump was against violence, not against violence exclusively in Afghanistan, so your generalised statement opened up the field for criticism of Trump’s warfare in other nations.
 
The US could easily change the world, by pouring all the trillions on war on real education instead and after 20 years the new generation will reject extremism.

If that had happened these people who are picking up arms to fight for afganistan would probably be scientists and doctors fighting covid.

The us could easily do it, forcing countries through sanctions to better educate there masses, but they dont, because there interests lay with capitalism that needs the bad guys.

I said this when the war on terror began, but I know think tanks in the US are not stupid, can only imagine they must know this.
 
Trump saying it how it is.

Where are the Biden supporters now? Biden doesn't even respond to questions by reporters, is not admitting responsibility and no doubt Biden will go down as one of the worst Presidents. His own party members and the democratic voters are quickly realising this.

Biden instead blames Trump, yet did exactly what Trump was going to do.

Trump 2024!
 
Biden was set on getting USA out by 9/11 + 20 as per his election promise.

Americans don’t seem to care so it won’t hurt him much.

European liberals think he left in too much haste. He was repeatedly buttonholed on this by G7 leaders, who saw the crisis coming but he is stubborn. And remember that he tried to get Obama to pull out.

I would like to think that a competent PM figure such as Rory Stewart or Sir Keir Starmer would have persuaded him to stay long enough to facilitate an evacuation, but we had Johnson instead.

As we have spent the last five years angering the Euros, we have no friends left. A UK/EU force could have protected Kabul and an exit corridor to get plenty of refugees out safely. But no. How diminished we are!
 
Biden was set on getting USA out by 9/11 + 20 as per his election promise.

Americans don’t seem to care so it won’t hurt him much.

European liberals think he left in too much haste. He was repeatedly buttonholed on this by G7 leaders, who saw the crisis coming but he is stubborn. And remember that he tried to get Obama to pull out.

I would like to think that a competent PM figure such as Rory Stewart or Sir Keir Starmer would have persuaded him to stay long enough to facilitate an evacuation, but we had Johnson instead.

As we have spent the last five years angering the Euros, we have no friends left. A UK/EU force could have protected Kabul and an exit corridor to get plenty of refugees out safely. But no. How diminished we are!

I think if we had worried about our own doortstep more - which is Europe - then Afghanistan/Russia/Timbuctoo would eventually have sorted themselves out. Being part of the EU in itself gave us some security and added value.
 
Two different entities here.

Afghanistan is a entity.

And there's a subset of people who are terrorist in Afghanistan.

Just because someone takes stand against latter set, that doesn't mean he is standing against former.

As for example, you robbed me and I beat you up. But beating up doesn't mean I am initiating some kind of hatred against Muslims but I beat you up because you robbed me.

The lack of comprehending sentences is surprising here. It's like I am teaching kindergarten kids.

“Trump is always against violence.” That’s your statement, always against violence. Dropping a bomb is a violent act, he dropped an MOAB which undoubtedly killed civilians as well. Seems like you have an issue with putting together cohesive sentences. Anyone who is always against violence would look for non lethal ways to resolve an issue.
 
Biden was set on getting USA out by 9/11 + 20 as per his election promise.

Americans don’t seem to care so it won’t hurt him much.

European liberals think he left in too much haste. He was repeatedly buttonholed on this by G7 leaders, who saw the crisis coming but he is stubborn. And remember that he tried to get Obama to pull out.

I would like to think that a competent PM figure such as Rory Stewart or Sir Keir Starmer would have persuaded him to stay long enough to facilitate an evacuation, but we had Johnson instead.

As we have spent the last five years angering the Euros, we have no friends left. A UK/EU force could have protected Kabul and an exit corridor to get plenty of refugees out safely. But no. How diminished we are!

When Trump announced he was going to pull troops out, the Democrats and the media crucified him. Biden does the same, and it's all ok because he made an election promise?
 
Last edited:
When Trump announced he was going to pull troops out, the Democrats and the media crucified him. Biden does the same, and it's all ok because he made an election promise?

Didn’t say either of those things. USA had to pull out sometime. Question was how.

What I think is clear is that Biden and Trump are both America First, which is disappointing after Biden talked of international liberalism vs. the rising authoritarian tide.

World is looking dark and cold for the UK now. USA in retreat from the world, Europa alienated.
 
EU foreign policy chief: Taliban ‘WON THE WAR,’ we’ll have to talk to them – and acknowledge mistakes

https://www.rt.com/news/532330-eu-taliban-won-war-afghanistan/

Won the war or lost the war is immaterial. It must be pretty clear by now that the only way forward in Afghanistan is co-operation not imposition. China understand this, possibly the EU as well, that will put them in a strong position.

USA got embroiled in a 20 year war and dragged everyone else along with them. That's over now, there's nothing to stop them taking a different approach now if they want to.
 
Didn’t say either of those things. USA had to pull out sometime. Question was how.

What I think is clear is that Biden and Trump are both America First, which is disappointing after Biden talked of international liberalism vs. the rising authoritarian tide.

World is looking dark and cold for the UK now. USA in retreat from the world, Europa alienated.

Yes, Trump did.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54968200

Not gonna argue with you cos we all know what Trump said.

Stay away from liberal news is my advice.

When Trump says pull out, it's crucifixion time, when Biden says it, it's an election promise.
 
Last edited:
Won the war or lost the war is immaterial. It must be pretty clear by now that the only way forward in Afghanistan is co-operation not imposition. China understand this, possibly the EU as well, that will put them in a strong position.

USA got embroiled in a 20 year war and dragged everyone else along with them. That's over now, there's nothing to stop them taking a different approach now if they want to.

Yup the only way is co-op, not dropping bombs. EU have realised this.
 
Yes, that’s why he dropped a MOAB in Afghanistan.

There is a difference being against violence and zero-violence.

Some violence like the MOAB may actually reduce future violence due to intimidation.
 
Illegal war in Iraq - it's over now, move on.

West pulling our of Afghanistan - it's over now, move on.

This is the answer to Western intervention? Anyone supporting Western intervention and say oops Afghanistan was a mistake clearly didn't pay attention to wars such as Vietnam.

How many more decades of Western intervention before people realise that it's a mistake? I guess you got to wait for instructions from the Media.
 
I mean I didn’t say either of those things.

You did say - Biden was set on getting USA out by 9/11 + 20 as per his election promise.

I was just pointing out Trump announced he was going to pull out troops too but was ridiculed by both Democrats and Dem voters.

Don't you see the hypocrisy? It's pretty clear it's not what was said but who said it.

Why was Trump ridiculed for saying he will pull out troops from Afghanistan, but not Biden?
 
Won the war or lost the war is immaterial. It must be pretty clear by now that the only way forward in Afghanistan is co-operation not imposition. China understand this, possibly the EU as well, that will put them in a strong position.

USA got embroiled in a 20 year war and dragged everyone else along with them. That's over now, there's nothing to stop them taking a different approach now if they want to.

Forgot to mention. Won the war or lost the war is 100% material. The West invaded Afghanistan on the pretext of war on terror. West lost.
 
Illegal war in Iraq - it's over now, move on.

West pulling our of Afghanistan - it's over now, move on.

This is the answer to Western intervention? Anyone supporting Western intervention and say oops Afghanistan was a mistake clearly didn't pay attention to wars such as Vietnam.

How many more decades of Western intervention before people realise that it's a mistake? I guess you got to wait for instructions from the Media.

The sad thing is the culprits can make a sad face on tv and are forgiven for the chaos they have caused on the world.
 
If 9/11 happened on his watch then this idiot would have nuked Afghanistan. All his supporters would have been baying for blood.

He wouldn’t have nuked Afghanistan, but he would have punished the Taliban in other ways. Probably bombed them and given arms to the Northern Alliance to help them overrun Kabul.

Would not have gone into stupid nation building projects.
 
You did say - Biden was set on getting USA out by 9/11 + 20 as per his election promise.

I was just pointing out Trump announced he was going to pull out troops too but was ridiculed by both Democrats and Dem voters.

Don't you see the hypocrisy? It's pretty clear it's not what was said but who said it.

Why was Trump ridiculed for saying he will pull out troops from Afghanistan, but not Biden?

People in this place talk about hypocrisy a lot. It’s a word used to nullify other’s values. To make excuses to avoid trying to make thinks better. Hypocrisy is something I don’t care about.

I detest Trump because he has no values, save what will advantage him. I feel let down by Biden because I believe he has some decency and competence, but he has failed as a statesman here.
 
I think if we had worried about our own doortstep more - which is Europe - then Afghanistan/Russia/Timbuctoo would eventually have sorted themselves out. Being part of the EU in itself gave us some security and added value.

Agreed, and we had a position of importance within the EU. Second most powerful economy and a lot of MEPs.

Going forward I think Biden’s actions show that the Atlanticism of the past is probably over and our future is with the EU. We should immediately strive for a closer relationship and rebuild ties. The world is forming into big economic blocs - EU, USA-Canada, China, trans-Pacific, Arab League, ECOWAS.
 
People in this place talk about hypocrisy a lot. It’s a word used to nullify other’s values. To make excuses to avoid trying to make thinks better. Hypocrisy is something I don’t care about.

I detest Trump because he has no values, save what will advantage him. I feel let down by Biden because I believe he has some decency and competence, but he has failed as a statesman here.

Fact is Biden is no different and has a worse political record than Trump, Bush, and Obama combined. There was a reason why Obama didn't want Biden to run against Trump in 2016 and instead backed Clinton. Biden joined the 2020 race because no Democratic candidate could risk losing against Trump in the way Clinton did, and had it not been for Covid, Trump would still be President.

The other fact is people supported Biden cos he was the alternative to Trump. That's it. Nothing to do with his policies or election promises. Turns out Biden is the same as Trump - America first.

Hypocrisy is a word often used, not just on this forum, but mainly in politics and MSM. It is used to nullify opinions but more so to expose one's bias and subjective view point.

Subjective reporting by MSM will always end up in tatters and dissapointment.

Trump does have values, it's just that you (along with his opponents) do not share the same values.

Any how, Biden is ensuring the West is losing its grip on the world stage, and with Boris at the helm, the next few years will see the rapid rise of the East.
 
The Bushes and Reagans and Thatchers and Heseltines and Majors and Mays had different values to me but I accept that they had values nonetheless. They believed in duty to country and people, in honour.

I don’t think Trump has values other than the purely transactional. He isn’t conservative, he isn’t liberal. He acts only to gain personal advantage on a moment by moment basis. There is no compassion or empathy there.

Sadly the current leaders of the Tory party are the same as Trump, if less crude. They are in politics not to serve but because they believe it is their right to rule. That is why none of them ever resign.
 
UK's role in the whole thing also not that great.

==

UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab is facing further pressure after it emerged a phone call requested by his officials to help interpreters flee Afghanistan was not made.

The UK government said Mr Raab was too busy to speak to his Afghan counterpart, with a junior minister being asked to do so instead.

But the Foreign Office now says it "was not possible" to arrange the call before the Afghan government collapsed.

Mr Raab has rejected demands from opposition parties to resign.

The British Armed Forces Minister, James Heappey, has insisted that a single phone call wouldn't have changed how events unfolded.

Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who chairs the Commons Defence Committee, said he agreed with Mr Heappey's statement but also suggested that it might be time for change within the Cabinet.

He told the BBC: "This government was put together back in December 2019 when the world looked very different indeed.

"You do need different skillsets, different types of leadership given the challenges that we now face, and I'm sure the prime minister will be considering that."
 
Raab says he was 'prioritising security' when he was advised to call Afghanistan

The foreign minister has been heavily criticised following reports that this call - suggested two days before the Taliban marched on Kabul - did not take place.

In a statement, Mr Raab said advice to call the Afghan foreign minister was "quickly overtaken by events" after being received by his office on 13 August.

He added the call was delegated to a minister of state because he was "prioritising security and capacity at the airport on the direct advice of the director and the director general overseeing the crisis response".

Mr Raab insisted this approach was the "right one", adding that 204 people were evacuated on 16 August as a result.

Some 1,635 people have since been evacuated by British forces.

He said: "The whole of government has been working tirelessly over the last week to help as many people evacuate from Afghanistan as possible. The UK government’s overriding priority has been to secure Kabul airport so that flights can leave."

SKY
 
Raab should go but if he does he will only be replaced by another kakistocrat.

BoJo won’t replace him with someone smarter who could threaten him.

.
 
UK politics is finished. UK decided to side with the Amreeka and has paid the price.

If UK had extended an olive branch to Russia/China then who knows, but right know, UK is literally caught in the middle with only one aspect confirmed, the special relationship hasn't paid dividends.
 
Raab should go but if he does he will only be replaced by another kakistocrat.

BoJo won’t replace him with someone smarter who could threaten him.

.

People are after raab for going on holiday but have a pass to our political establishment for getting us into this mess for over 20 years.

The real culprits are walking around with bigger pockets completely unscathed.
 
Biden was set on getting USA out by 9/11 + 20 as per his election promise.

Americans don’t seem to care so it won’t hurt him much.

European liberals think he left in too much haste. He was repeatedly buttonholed on this by G7 leaders, who saw the crisis coming but he is stubborn. And remember that he tried to get Obama to pull out.

I would like to think that a competent PM figure such as Rory Stewart or Sir Keir Starmer would have persuaded him to stay long enough to facilitate an evacuation, but we had Johnson instead.

As we have spent the last five years angering the Euros, we have no friends left. A UK/EU force could have protected Kabul and an exit corridor to get plenty of refugees out safely. But no. How diminished we are!

Johnson is a tool, but re the evacuation disaster, it is on Biden frankly.

US & UK media reported today, and it has also been corroborated by an UK government official, that Johnson was desperately calling through to Washington for days to try and get some support from Biden to coordinate UK-US efforts at Kabul airport. Biden however refused to take Johnson’s many phone calls for a 36 hour period.

For an international ally to behave like this in an ongoing crisis scenario is totally bloody appalling and unacceptable. Johnson (unusually for him) put the effort in on this one. Biden just didn’t.

Biden has been a massive disappointment as President. He is a proper turkey.
 
UK politics is finished. UK decided to side with the Amreeka and has paid the price.

If UK had extended an olive branch to Russia/China then who knows, but right know, UK is literally caught in the middle with only one aspect confirmed, the special relationship hasn't paid dividends.

The apparent “special relationship” is at a historic low point right now.

People in the UK bashed on Donald Trump and called him an enemy, but even in the open context of the America First policy, the UK-US allyship viewed objectively was quite close knit when he was the POTUS. Trump had a very good working relationship with Theresa May.

President Biden is taking a far more isolationist stance than President Trump from what I can see. This is not even America First anymore. It is America Only.
 
I agree with Trump on this one.

Firstly the decision was based on a lie, the official version of 911 is well known to be a false.

Even if it was true, to invade one of the poorest nations is cowardly and nothing short of one of the worst terrorist acts in history.

$2 trillion and thousands of US soldiers killed is not even the biggest disaster for the US. Being badly defeated is humilation not many other superpowers have seen.

End result, China, Pakistan, Russia will benefit from the resources of Afghanistan. US will be isolated, the EU might distance themselves from the Yanks too , hoping to benefit from Afghanistan without them.
 
Johnson is a tool, but re the evacuation disaster, it is on Biden frankly.

US & UK media reported today, and it has also been corroborated by an UK government official, that Johnson was desperately calling through to Washington for days to try and get some support from Biden to coordinate UK-US efforts at Kabul airport. Biden however refused to take Johnson’s many phone calls for a 36 hour period.

For an international ally to behave like this in an ongoing crisis scenario is totally bloody appalling and unacceptable. Johnson (unusually for him) put the effort in on this one. Biden just didn’t.

Biden has been a massive disappointment as President. He is a proper turkey.

I think you don’t quite realize that given Biden’s diminished faculties he is often simply incapable of taking calls.
 
Johnson is a tool, but re the evacuation disaster, it is on Biden frankly.

US & UK media reported today, and it has also been corroborated by an UK government official, that Johnson was desperately calling through to Washington for days to try and get some support from Biden to coordinate UK-US efforts at Kabul airport. Biden however refused to take Johnson’s many phone calls for a 36 hour period.

For an international ally to behave like this in an ongoing crisis scenario is totally bloody appalling and unacceptable. Johnson (unusually for him) put the effort in on this one. Biden just didn’t.

Biden has been a massive disappointment as President. He is a proper turkey.

A 78-year old should not be POTUS. He should be enjoying his grandkids. The Dems put him up because they thought he was the only one who could defeat Trump, and they were right.

But even Mandela did not seek re-election aged 79 and neither should Joe.

He should have run against Bush in 2000, when he was still at his full capability.
 
People are after raab for going on holiday but have a pass to our political establishment for getting us into this mess for over 20 years.

The real culprits are walking around with bigger pockets completely unscathed.

Seventy Britons died in 9/11. That could not go unanswered. Hence the original deployment. Thereafter the UN took over.
 
A 78-year old should not be POTUS. He should be enjoying his grandkids. The Dems put him up because they thought he was the only one who could defeat Trump, and they were right.

But even Mandela did not seek re-election aged 79 and neither should Joe.

He should have run against Bush in 2000, when he was still at his full capability.

Biden’s press conferences this week have been an embarrassment. No less uncomfortable to watch than a Trump press conference, just for different reasons.

The POTUS candidate selection since Obama left office has been dreadful.

Hopefully one of the two major US parties can put up a competent person in 2024, and the American public can actually feel enthusiastic and proud of their voting choice again.
 
The Dems put up Biden because no Dem candidate would risk damaging their career by losing to Trump. Biden initially wasn't going to run because of personal tradegy, the covid hit, and he put himself up as a nominee, (if he lost he'd retire anyway at 78) but in the end he was the last candidate standing. (Biden had failed to be the Dem nominee a number of times in the past.)

Biden didn't do so much to win, he got lucky with the Covid situtation which resulted in the entire postal vote saga which cost Trump his presidency.

We can see his policies have been a failure. Illegal immigrants have ramped up, Covid still at large, economy still fragile, and now of course Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
The Dems put up Biden because no Dem candidate would risk damaging their career by losing to Trump. Biden initially wasn't going to run because of personal tradegy, the covid hit, and he put himself up as a nominee, but in the end he was the last candidate standing. (Biden had failed to be the Dem nominee a number of times in the past.)

Biden didn't do so much to win, he got lucky with the Covid situtation which resulted in the entire postal vote saga which cost Trump his presidency.

We can see his policies have been a failure. Illegal immigrants have ramped up, Covid still at large, economy still fragile, and now of course Afghanistan.

There was a democrat candidate race and I think there was something like twenty five democrats who initially put their hands up for the presidential candidacy.

Biden didn't stand in 2016 due to his sons illness.

Having said that Biden should be relieved of his duties. He did his job which was to beat Trump and now a younger more in tune candidate should take over
 
Biden’s press conferences this week have been an embarrassment. No less uncomfortable to watch than a Trump press conference, just for different reasons.

The POTUS candidate selection since Obama left office has been dreadful.

Hopefully one of the two major US parties can put up a competent person in 2024, and the American public can actually feel enthusiastic and proud of their voting choice again.

Biden's press conferences are indeed an embarrassment. He literally reads off a script, refuses to take questions, and has trouble remembering the basics - all because of his age.

Trump was at best entertaining with his press conferences, very unorthodox, but would still generate millions of inches for the media, make breaking news (even a spelling typo would suffice), and revolutionised social media for politics and politicans alike, to the point he was banned from SM platforms. He still has an enormous voter base which the Republicans are counting on in 2024. One of the reasons the Senate didn't vote to impeach him.
 
The apparent “special relationship” is at a historic low point right now.

People in the UK bashed on Donald Trump and called him an enemy, but even in the open context of the America First policy, the UK-US allyship viewed objectively was quite close knit when he was the POTUS. Trump had a very good working relationship with Theresa May.

President Biden is taking a far more isolationist stance than President Trump from what I can see. This is not even America First anymore. It is America Only.

I hold the opinion there was never a special relationship between UK and USA. At best Reagan/Thatcher, or 5 Eyes, but that's as far as it goes. UK has always remained the whooping boys of the USA. UK had absolutely no reason to enter Iraq or Afghanistan - none what so ever. UK will now pay the price for decades.

UK should look at building bridges with the East now, but this is if the USA lets us!
 
Seventy Britons died in 9/11. That could not go unanswered. Hence the original deployment. Thereafter the UN took over.

Are you still defending the invasion? Im sure it was Iraq you were calling foriegn forces as not occupiers?

No Afghan group has ever attacked the UK, yet Brits have invaded 3 times in the last couple of centuries.

The civilised method which is the norm in Int law is to ask the ruling powers to hand over suspects once you have provided them with evidence. The Taliban were ignored, no proof given but instead an immoral , disgusting invasion which has resulsted in thousands of Afghans being murdered.

Lets hope no bigger power invades the UK, I think you'll change your tune if you have to live through what they have.

You cannot claim to be liberal or person who cares if you still support warmongering.
 
Tony Blair has dramatically broken his silence over the crisis in Afghanistan by accusing President Joe Biden of an "imbecilic" decision to pull out US troops.

In a controversial verdict on the unfolding tragedy, he also claims the crisis reveals that the UK risks being relegated to "the second division of global powers".

He blames Britain being "out of Europe and "little or no consultation" by "our greatest ally", the United States, for the UK's declining influence in the world.

And in a brutal attack on President Biden's abrupt withdrawal of US troops, he claims it is obvious that the decision to withdraw was not driven by grand strategy but by politics.

"We didn't need to do it," Mr Blair writes. "We chose to do it. We did it in obedience to an imbecilic political slogan about ending 'the forever wars'."

His attacks - especially his reference to Brexit - may delight his supporters but will infuriate critics, who will claim his record on Iraq and Afghanistan has left him discredited

The hard-hitting assessment of the Taliban takeover by Mr Blair, who as PM also sent British troops into Afghanistan in 2001, comes in a lengthy article for his Institute for Global Change.

"The abandonment of Afghanistan and its people is tragic, dangerous, unnecessary, not in their interests and not in ours," the former PM writes.

"As the leader of our country when we took the decision to join America in removing the Taliban from power, and who saw the high hopes we had of what we could achieve for the people and the world, subside under the weight of bitter reality, I know better than most how difficult are the decisions of leadership and how easy it is to be critical and how hard to be constructive."

In his attack on President Biden, Mr Blair writes: "Russia, China and Iran will see and take advantage. Anyone given commitments by Western Leaders will understandably regard them as unstable currency.

"We did it because our politics seemed to demand it. And that's the worry of our allies and the source of rejoicing in those who wish us ill. They think Western politics is broken."

In criticism aimed at Donald Trump as well as President Biden, Mr Blair claims "the deep politicisation of foreign policy and security issues" is weakening American power.

He writes: "And for Britain, out of Europe and suffering the end of the Afghanistan mission by our greatest ally with little or no consultation, we have serious reflection to do.

"We don't see it yet. But we are at risk of relegation to the second division of global powers. Maybe we don't mind. But we should at least take the decision deliberatively."

He adds: "If the West wants to shape the 21st Century it will take commitment. Through thick and thin. When it's rough as well as easy. Making sure allies have confidence and opponents caution.

"It will require parts of the right in politics to understand that isolation in an interconnected world is self-defeating; and parts of the left to accept that intervention can sometimes be necessary to uphold our values."

On what needs to happen now, Mr Blair writes: "We must evacuate and give sanctuary to those to whom we have responsibility - those Afghans who helped us and stood by us and have a right to demand we stand by them.

"There must be no repetition of arbitrary deadlines. We have a moral obligation to keep at it until all those who need to be are evacuated. And we should do so not grudgingly but out of a deep sense of humanity and responsibility.

"We need then to work out a means of dealing with the Taliban and exerting maximum pressure on them. This is not as empty as it seems. We have given up much of our leverage, but we retain some.

"The Taliban will face very difficult decisions and likely divide deeply over them. The country, its finances and its public sector workforce are significantly dependent on aid notably from the USA, Japan, the UK and others. The average age of the population is 18. A majority of Afghans have known freedom and not known the Taliban regime. They will not all conform quietly."

And turning to what Mr Johnson must do, he adds: "The UK as the current G7 chair should convene a Contact Group of the G7 and other key nations and commit to coordinating help to the Afghan people and holding the new regime to account. NATO - which has had 8,000 troops still in Afghanistan alongside the USA - and Europe should be brought fully into cooperation under this grouping.

"We need to draw up a list of incentives, sanctions, actions we can take including to protect the civilian population so the Taliban understand their actions will have consequences. This is urgent."

SKY
 
Are you still defending the invasion? Im sure it was Iraq you were calling foriegn forces as not occupiers?

No Afghan group has ever attacked the UK, yet Brits have invaded 3 times in the last couple of centuries.

The civilised method which is the norm in Int law is to ask the ruling powers to hand over suspects once you have provided them with evidence. The Taliban were ignored, no proof given but instead an immoral , disgusting invasion which has resulsted in thousands of Afghans being murdered.

Lets hope no bigger power invades the UK, I think you'll change your tune if you have to live through what they have.

You cannot claim to be liberal or person who cares if you still support warmongering.

Stop whattaboutting and generalising please. Thread is about Afghanistan in the last twenty years, not Iraq and what the British Empire did a hundred years ago. All those Empire builders are in their graves.

You seriously think Bush had time to wait for the Taliban to meet and discuss what to do while his citizens were crying out for justice? You think the Taliban even knew? Get real.

Someone based in Afghanistan attacked the USA, killing 2500 Americans and 70 Britons. That was an act of war. NATO Article Five was declared - meaning every NATO state was attacked. International law allows attacked countries to defend themselves.
 
The apparent “special relationship” is at a historic low point right now.

People in the UK bashed on Donald Trump and called him an enemy, but even in the open context of the America First policy, the UK-US allyship viewed objectively was quite close knit when he was the POTUS. Trump had a very good working relationship with Theresa May.

President Biden is taking a far more isolationist stance than President Trump from what I can see. This is not even America First anymore. It is America Only.

Not what I heard. She was reportedly in tears after phoning him one time. Guy hates women, particularly ones with power.
 
Former President Donald Trump launched on Saturday a sustained attack on President Joe Biden's handling of the retreat of US forces from Afghanistan, which he called "the greatest foreign policy humiliation" in US history.

Trump, a Republican who has dangled the possibility of running again for president in 2024, has repeatedly blamed Biden, a Democrat, for Afghanistan's fall to the militant Taliban, even though the US withdrawal that triggered the collapse was negotiated by his own administration.

"Biden’s botched exit from Afghanistan is the most astonishing display of gross incompetence by a nation’s leader, perhaps at any time," Trump said at a boisterous rally packed with his supporters near Cullman, Alabama.

Taliban leaders are trying to hammer out a new government after their forces swept across the country as US-led forces pulled out after two decades, with the Western-backed government and military crumbling.

For his part, Biden has criticized the Afghan military for refusing to fight, denounced the now-ousted Afghan government, and declared he inherited a bad withdrawal agreement from Trump.

At the rally, Trump blamed the situation on Biden not having followed the plan his administration came up with and bemoaned US personnel and equipment being left behind as troops withdrew.

"This is not a withdrawal. This was a total surrender," he said.

Trump said the Taliban, with whom he had negotiated, respected him. He suggested the quick takeover of Afghanistan would not have happened if he was still in office.

"We could have gotten out with honor," Trump added. "We should have gotten out with honor. And instead, we got out with the exact opposite of honor."
 
Tony Blair has dramatically broken his silence over the crisis in Afghanistan by accusing President Joe Biden of an "imbecilic" decision to pull out US troops.

In a controversial verdict on the unfolding tragedy, he also claims the crisis reveals that the UK risks being relegated to "the second division of global powers".

He blames Britain being "out of Europe and "little or no consultation" by "our greatest ally", the United States, for the UK's declining influence in the world.

And in a brutal attack on President Biden's abrupt withdrawal of US troops, he claims it is obvious that the decision to withdraw was not driven by grand strategy but by politics.

"We didn't need to do it," Mr Blair writes. "We chose to do it. We did it in obedience to an imbecilic political slogan about ending 'the forever wars'."

His attacks - especially his reference to Brexit - may delight his supporters but will infuriate critics, who will claim his record on Iraq and Afghanistan has left him discredited

The hard-hitting assessment of the Taliban takeover by Mr Blair, who as PM also sent British troops into Afghanistan in 2001, comes in a lengthy article for his Institute for Global Change.

"The abandonment of Afghanistan and its people is tragic, dangerous, unnecessary, not in their interests and not in ours," the former PM writes.

"As the leader of our country when we took the decision to join America in removing the Taliban from power, and who saw the high hopes we had of what we could achieve for the people and the world, subside under the weight of bitter reality, I know better than most how difficult are the decisions of leadership and how easy it is to be critical and how hard to be constructive."

In his attack on President Biden, Mr Blair writes: "Russia, China and Iran will see and take advantage. Anyone given commitments by Western Leaders will understandably regard them as unstable currency.

"We did it because our politics seemed to demand it. And that's the worry of our allies and the source of rejoicing in those who wish us ill. They think Western politics is broken."

In criticism aimed at Donald Trump as well as President Biden, Mr Blair claims "the deep politicisation of foreign policy and security issues" is weakening American power.

He writes: "And for Britain, out of Europe and suffering the end of the Afghanistan mission by our greatest ally with little or no consultation, we have serious reflection to do.

"We don't see it yet. But we are at risk of relegation to the second division of global powers. Maybe we don't mind. But we should at least take the decision deliberatively."

He adds: "If the West wants to shape the 21st Century it will take commitment. Through thick and thin. When it's rough as well as easy. Making sure allies have confidence and opponents caution.

"It will require parts of the right in politics to understand that isolation in an interconnected world is self-defeating; and parts of the left to accept that intervention can sometimes be necessary to uphold our values."

On what needs to happen now, Mr Blair writes: "We must evacuate and give sanctuary to those to whom we have responsibility - those Afghans who helped us and stood by us and have a right to demand we stand by them.

"There must be no repetition of arbitrary deadlines. We have a moral obligation to keep at it until all those who need to be are evacuated. And we should do so not grudgingly but out of a deep sense of humanity and responsibility.

"We need then to work out a means of dealing with the Taliban and exerting maximum pressure on them. This is not as empty as it seems. We have given up much of our leverage, but we retain some.

"The Taliban will face very difficult decisions and likely divide deeply over them. The country, its finances and its public sector workforce are significantly dependent on aid notably from the USA, Japan, the UK and others. The average age of the population is 18. A majority of Afghans have known freedom and not known the Taliban regime. They will not all conform quietly."

And turning to what Mr Johnson must do, he adds: "The UK as the current G7 chair should convene a Contact Group of the G7 and other key nations and commit to coordinating help to the Afghan people and holding the new regime to account. NATO - which has had 8,000 troops still in Afghanistan alongside the USA - and Europe should be brought fully into cooperation under this grouping.

"We need to draw up a list of incentives, sanctions, actions we can take including to protect the civilian population so the Taliban understand their actions will have consequences. This is urgent."

SKY

Paragraph 3 sums up the so called 'special relationship'.
 
Rory Stewart on BBCQT points out that USA is still in South Korea after seventy years and had they pulled out after twenty years, then South Korea would have fallen to the ROK.

NATO states should have taken responsibility for the mess they made and been there for the long haul until free institutions bedded down.
 
One cannot ignore Iraq when discussing Afghanistan post 9/11.

Iraq war was based on fabricated evidence. Even if we were to grant the notion the attacker was in Afghanistan, why attack Iraq? More so, once Bin Laden was ‘dead’, why stay in Afghanistan?

Nothing to do with Nato. Until the West hold Bush and Blair responsible for war crimes, there is no justice.
 
Not what I heard. She was reportedly in tears after phoning him one time. Guy hates women, particularly ones with power.

I know you dislike Trump but you do the exact same thing you berate him for.
 
Stop whattaboutting and generalising please. Thread is about Afghanistan in the last twenty years, not Iraq and what the British Empire did a hundred years ago. All those Empire builders are in their graves.

You seriously think Bush had time to wait for the Taliban to meet and discuss what to do while his citizens were crying out for justice? You think the Taliban even knew? Get real.

Someone based in Afghanistan attacked the USA, killing 2500 Americans and 70 Britons. That was an act of war. NATO Article Five was declared - meaning every NATO state was attacked. International law allows attacked countries to defend themselves.

Its not whataboutism Robert, its context on your views of invasion of another country, Afghanistan this time. Iraq, Libya, Syria,Yemen,Sudan, Afghanistan are still suffering badly due to western state terrorism, dropping bombs & invasions.

Time?l.....Bush is a clown but still commander of the armed forces, thus is responsible. The so called 'Operation Enduring Freedom' began on October 7, 2001. US and western media WITHIN HALF HOUR blamed OBL. The US and its cronies had weeks to provide evidence to the ruling Afghan government. But they didnt because they WANTED to bomb & invade. Anyone who thinks they only wanted to get OBL and take out Al-Q bases is very wrong to put it politley.

Come on Robert, you're TRYING to debate me not some poor Afghan. An Act of War is between two NATIONS. Afghanistan or Taliban werent behind 911, as accepted by the invaders. If a group attacks civilians in another country, its a criminal or terrorist attack by a group which should be dealt without bombing , invading a nation of innocent people , poor people who manage to eat food daily, not much else.

Even if you cheer invasions, a sensible person would now look back and realise this was the biggest war disaster in US history. Not only were they defeated, humiliated(along with the UK), the people 40+ nations wanted rid of are not only back in power but stronger than ever before. lol

The good news Robert, the world is now a safer place without Nato in Afghanistan. Pakistan firstly wont have states next door with bases planning terrorist attacks in their land. You care for 70 Brits but what about the 70,000 Pakistanis who died as a result of this invasion? Taliban have also evovled into a better bunch, leave the Afghans alone for maybe 50 years they will be a strong , modern nation.

The bad news Robert, this humiliation, defeat has started a domino effect. Its very slow atm, will remain slow for the next few years but the US empire is not only in decline, its on the way down. US has gave the world a lot of good things inc some good movies but this is overshadowed by their desctrucdtion of the planet, the people and nations by installing puppets.

Bump this on 2030, you will see the petrodollar no longer exists, which in turn will US power and influence will severely weakned, making it no longer the worlds only supwerpower, in fact 2nd to China.

Going to war with nations or even groups is wrong in the way the US did but it also went to war with Islam, this is height of stupidity. :)
 
Trump is right. Doing regime changes in Muslim countries has not only cost the US a lot of money, its made the entire region worse off. Change has to come from within those countries. The US can use trade incentives and aid, as incentives for governments to change policies that they dont like. But fighting war is a disaster.
 
KABUL/WASHINGTON:The United States has an unwavering commitment to getting U.S. citizens and at-risk Afghans out of Afghanistan, President Joe Biden said, as Taliban fighters beat back thousands desperate to flee outside Kabul airport on Sunday.

Biden said the security situation in Afghanistan was changing rapidly and his administration was under no illusions about the threat from Islamic State militants in Afghanistan known as ISIS-K (for Khorasan).

The Taliban, which seized power in Afghanistan last week as the United States and its allies withdrew troops after a 20-year war, fired in the air and used batons to force people to form queues outside the airport, witnesses said. On Saturday, seven Afghans were killed in a crush at the gates.

A U.S. Marine comforts an infant while they wait for the mother during an evacuation at Hamid Karzai International Airport, Afghanistan, August 21, 2021. Picture taken August 21, 2021. U.S. Marine Corps/Lance Cpl. Nicholas Guevara/Handout via REUTERS

A U.S. Marine comforts an infant while they wait for the mother during an evacuation at Hamid Karzai International Airport, Afghanistan, August 21, 2021. Picture taken August 21, 2021. U.S. Marine Corps/Lance Cpl. Nicholas Guevara/Handout via REUTERS

A NATO official said at least 20 people had died in the past seven days in and around the airport. Some were shot and others died in stampedes, witnesses have said.

"Let me be clear, the evacuation of thousands from Kabul is going to be hard and painful" and would have been "no matter when it began," Biden said in a briefing at the White House.

"We have a long way to go and a lot could still go wrong."

Biden said he had directed the State Department to contact Americans stranded in Afghanistan by phone, email and other means, and the United States had a plan to move them to the airport.

"We're executing a plan to move groups of these Americans to safety and to safely and effectively move them to the airport compound. For security reasons, I'm not going to go into detail ... but I will say again today what I've said before: Any American who wants to get home will get home."

Afghan allies of the West and vulnerable Afghans such as women activists and journalists would be helped too, he said.

READ US orders commercial planes to help move Afghanistan evacuees
On Sunday, there were no major injuries as gunmen beat back the crowds, according to witnesses. The Taliban had been "cooperative" about extending the airport perimeter, Biden said.

Asked by a reporter whether the United States would extend an Aug. 31 deadline for evacuations, Biden replied: "Our hope is we will not have to extend but there are going to be discussions I suspect on how far along we are in the process."

Civilian aircraft

The United States on Sunday sought the help of six commercial airlines to transport people after their evacuation from Afghanistan. Biden said people were being assisted by more than two dozen countries in four continents.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called a virtual meeting of leaders of the Group of Seven wealthy nations for Tuesday to "ensure safe evacuations, prevent a humanitarian crisis and support the Afghan people".

Britain plans to push world leaders to consider new sanctions on the Taliban when the G7 meets, sources told Reuters. Biden said he would support that effort, depending on the conduct of the Taliban.

Panicked Afghans have tried to board flights out of Kabul since last weekend, fearing reprisals and a return to a harsh version of Islamic law the Sunni Muslim group exercised while in power two decades ago.

Leaders of the Taliban, who have sought to show a more moderate face since capturing Kabul, have begun talks on forming a government.

Opposition

They face opposition from forces in northern Afghanistan, which said this weekend they had taken three districts close to the Panjshir valley.

Anti-Taliban leader Ahmad Massoud said on Sunday he hoped to hold peaceful talks with the Islamist movement but that his forces in the Panjshir - remnants of army units, special forces and militiamen - were ready to fight.

"We want to make the Taliban realise that the only way forward is through negotiation," he said. "We do not want a war to break out."

The Taliban said hundreds of their fighters were heading towards Panjshir, showing a video on Twitter of a column of captured trucks with the white Taliban flag but still bearing their government markings moving along a highway.

The United States and other countries including Britain have brought in several thousand troops to help evacuate foreign citizens and at-risk Afghans from Kabul, but have been careful to avoid clashes with the Taliban.

A Taliban official said: "We are seeking complete clarity on foreign forces' exit plan".

Taliban political office spokesman Mohammed Naeem told Saudi-owned Al Hadath TV that talks are ongoing with the United States and other countries. He said al Qaeda is not present in Afghanistan and the Taliban has no relationship with it.

Afghans who fled in the past week have spoken about their despair at leaving loved ones behind. "It was very difficult to leave," a veiled woman told Reuters in Qatar. "I love my country."

The World Health Organization and U.N. children's agency UNICEF called for a humanitarian air bridge to deliver aid to Afghanistan to help more than 18 million people in need.

U.S. Army Major General William Taylor said on Saturday that the United States in the past week had evacuated 17,000 people, including 2,500 Americans, from Kabul.

On one of the flights, an Afghan woman gave birth on board moments after landing at Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Saturday, the U.S. Air Force said on Twitter. The woman delivered a baby girl in the cargo bay of a C-17 aircraft. The mother and baby were in good condition, the tweet said.
 
Back
Top