Trump, then Biden Afghanistan Debacle

[Chuck Naill]

Thoughts or discussion points?

[724Seney]

Sure. The "silence" here the past few days has been deafening.
Every time Trump so much as sneezed during his time in office the usual gang here got started with all their usual shock, rage and inane accusations.
Well, where have they been the last 5 days or so??

Trump, on his worst day, never humiliated Americans (or infuriated world leaders) more than what Biden has accomplished with his Afghanistan screw-up. Never.
And, you want to talk about "the big lie?" Well, just tune into any of Biden's defiant public comments about this disgrace which he and he alone has created.

In 2014 Robert Gates (OBAMA'S Defense Secretary) said the following about Biden: "I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
Now Biden's own senior team members are on record for making it clear Biden was advised, by them, to not do what he did........ Nothing has changed.

Some of us were aware of Biden's many dangerous shortcomings and we were worried what we might be getting into if he were elected President. Not that we loved Trump or refused to acknowledge that there were some problems with him. He was, simply, the lesser of the two evils. Others not so much, largely because they were so upset about the latest tempest in a teapot they were perpetuating about Trump.

From any and every perspective our Country is much worse off now that it was on January 20, 2021. And, Biden is only 8 months into his term! Worse, taking him out is a non-option because Kamela has proven herself to be a real disaster waiting to happen.

Well guys, what are you thinking now?? You got what you wanted. I hope you are happy!

[dneal]

To me there are three overarching themes or topics, each complex in its own right.

1. Nation Building. It's a dumb idea. It worked twice, with two of the most rule-oriented societies on the planet. It has failed every time since. Doesn't matter if it's "regime change" via CIA coup or straight up military action. Doesn't work for a lot of reasons, and there's no real obligation (moral or legal) to do it.

2. 20-Year War. Nope. It was a series of twenty, one-year wars. We never committed to it. People were much more worried about their report cards than any real progress. Lots of money was made, in every way you can imagine, by many nationalities.

3. Responsibility. I once told an Afghan that we couldn't give them peace. We could only give them a chance. Truth is, they had their chance. They weren't willing to fight for it. The Taliban are, and that's why they're in Kabul.

Lots of money and careers were made in 20 years. A lot of idiots dreamed we would turn it into some genteel western society. See those pictures from the 70's? Women in mini-skirts in Kabul?

I always said I would be happy if we could just get it up to Deadwood.

We've walked away. We should not go back except to carpet bomb somebody with a wing of B52's. We do need to make a considerable effort to get as many citizens out as we can though.

I don't blame Joe, although it could have been much more orderly than the sneaking away in the middle of the night bullshit we saw, and the mess that has led to. I don't blame Trump either, or Obama or even Bush really. People will bludgeon each other politically over this for a while. It doesn't really matter if that's all the use people derive from it. D's and R's both voted for it, and had their turns administering it. This is a failure of the ideologues. The "smart" people. The bureaucrats and the bureaucracy. John Boltons and Susan Rices (pick others, left or right, if you like).

It's done. Another empire consumed. Close the chapter on that book.

[TSherbs]

Sure. The "silence" here the past few days has been deafening.
Every time Trump so much as sneezed during his time in office the usual gang here got started with all their usual shock, rage and inane accusations.
Well, where have they been the last 5 days or so??

Trump, on his worst day, never humiliated Americans (or infuriated world leaders) more than what Biden has accomplished with his Afghanistan screw-up. Never.
And, you want to talk about "the big lie?" Well, just tune into any of Biden's defiant public comments about this disgrace which he and he alone has created.


Where have we been? Waiting for someone to begin a thread with spurious claims like these, I guess. :noidea: Where you been?

[724Seney]

Sure. The "silence" here the past few days has been deafening.
Every time Trump so much as sneezed during his time in office the usual gang here got started with all their usual shock, rage and inane accusations.
Well, where have they been the last 5 days or so??

Trump, on his worst day, never humiliated Americans (or infuriated world leaders) more than what Biden has accomplished with his Afghanistan screw-up. Never.
And, you want to talk about "the big lie?" Well, just tune into any of Biden's defiant public comments about this disgrace which he and he alone has created.


Where have we been? Waiting for someone to begin a thread with spurious claims like these, I guess. :noidea: Where you been?

Thanks for your reply. Let's not worry about where either of us have been. That will get us nowhere. Why not we start at the present? Right here, right now. My post and your reply to it.
Please list what I have written which is a "spurious" claim.
The Gates quote?
The "on the record" comments made by Biden's senior advisors?

[TSherbs]

To me there are three overarching themes or topics, each complex in its own right.

1. Nation Building. It's a dumb idea. It worked twice, with two of the most rule-oriented societies on the planet. It has failed every time since. Doesn't matter if it's "regime change" via CIA coup or straight up military action. Doesn't work for a lot of reasons, and there's no real obligation (moral or legal) to do it.

2. 20-Year War. Nope. It was a series of twenty, one-year wars. We never committed to it. People were much more worried about their report cards than any real progress. Lots of money was made, in every way you can imagine, by many nationalities.

3. Responsibility. I once told an Afghan that we couldn't give them peace. We could only give them a chance. Truth is, they had their chance. They weren't willing to fight for it. The Taliban are, and that's why they're in Kabul.

Lots of money and careers were made in 20 years. A lot of idiots dreamed we would turn it into some genteel western society. See those pictures from the 70's? Women in mini-skirts in Kabul?

I always said I would be happy if we could just get it up to Deadwood.

We've walked away. We should not go back except to carpet bomb somebody with a wing of B52's. We do need to make a considerable effort to get as many citizens out as we can though.

I don't blame Joe, although it could have been much more orderly than the sneaking away in the middle of the night bullshit we saw, and the mess that has led to. I don't blame Trump either, or Obama or even Bush really. People will bludgeon each other politically over this for a while. It doesn't really matter if that's all the use people derive from it. D's and R's both voted for it, and had their turns administering it. This is a failure of the ideologues. The "smart" people. The bureaucrats and the bureaucracy. John Boltons and Susan Rices (pick others, left or right, if you like).

It's done. Another empire consumed. Close the chapter on that book.

The tragic history of modern Afghanistan goes back to the Brits and their failed attempts at empire. Then the Russians thought they could subdue it. Then the Americans thought that they could "build" a modern democracy there (sort of, that's what they said). We were also hellbent on tracking down Bin Laden. The other problem in America is the difficulty of being a representative for office and voting against the jingoistic myths of American machismo and exceptionalism. Doing so tends to mark the end of a political career, regardless of being in the right.

America has received exactly what it deserves in this outcome. But the decent folk of Afghanistan have not.

Blame whoever you want. I am not going to defend Biden personally, but there is no need to be spurious in ones claims against him.

[Chuck Naill]

To me there are three overarching themes or topics, each complex in its own right.

1. Nation Building. It's a dumb idea. It worked twice, with two of the most rule-oriented societies on the planet. It has failed every time since. Doesn't matter if it's "regime change" via CIA coup or straight up military action. Doesn't work for a lot of reasons, and there's no real obligation (moral or legal) to do it.

2. 20-Year War. Nope. It was a series of twenty, one-year wars. We never committed to it. People were much more worried about their report cards than any real progress. Lots of money was made, in every way you can imagine, by many nationalities.

3. Responsibility. I once told an Afghan that we couldn't give them peace. We could only give them a chance. Truth is, they had their chance. They weren't willing to fight for it. The Taliban are, and that's why they're in Kabul.

Lots of money and careers were made in 20 years. A lot of idiots dreamed we would turn it into some genteel western society. See those pictures from the 70's? Women in mini-skirts in Kabul?

I always said I would be happy if we could just get it up to Deadwood.

We've walked away. We should not go back except to carpet bomb somebody with a wing of B52's. We do need to make a considerable effort to get as many citizens out as we can though.

I don't blame Joe, although it could have been much more orderly than the sneaking away in the middle of the night bullshit we saw, and the mess that has led to. I don't blame Trump either, or Obama or even Bush really. People will bludgeon each other politically over this for a while. It doesn't really matter if that's all the use people derive from it. D's and R's both voted for it, and had their turns administering it. This is a failure of the ideologues. The "smart" people. The bureaucrats and the bureaucracy. John Boltons and Susan Rices (pick others, left or right, if you like).

It's done. Another empire consumed. Close the chapter on that book.

Well stated. 👍

[TSherbs]

Sure. The "silence" here the past few days has been deafening.
Every time Trump so much as sneezed during his time in office the usual gang here got started with all their usual shock, rage and inane accusations.
Well, where have they been the last 5 days or so??

Trump, on his worst day, never humiliated Americans (or infuriated world leaders) more than what Biden has accomplished with his Afghanistan screw-up. Never.
And, you want to talk about "the big lie?" Well, just tune into any of Biden's defiant public comments about this disgrace which he and he alone has created.


Where have we been? Waiting for someone to begin a thread with spurious claims like these, I guess. :noidea: Where you been?

Thanks for your reply. Let's not worry about where either of us have been. That will get us nowhere. Why not we start at the present? Right here, right now. My post and your reply to it.
Please list what I have written which is a "spurious" claim.
The Gates quote?
The "on the record" comments made by Biden's senior advisors?

"which he and he alone has created"

That's poppycock, seney. As if the mess of Afghanistan is any one person's fault "alone." I mean, really. This would be like my claiming that Jan 6 was the result of Trump and "Trump alone." That would be equally spurious.

[724Seney]

Sure. The "silence" here the past few days has been deafening.
Every time Trump so much as sneezed during his time in office the usual gang here got started with all their usual shock, rage and inane accusations.
Well, where have they been the last 5 days or so??

Trump, on his worst day, never humiliated Americans (or infuriated world leaders) more than what Biden has accomplished with his Afghanistan screw-up. Never.
And, you want to talk about "the big lie?" Well, just tune into any of Biden's defiant public comments about this disgrace which he and he alone has created.


Where have we been? Waiting for someone to begin a thread with spurious claims like these, I guess. :noidea: Where you been?

Thanks for your reply. Let's not worry about where either of us have been. That will get us nowhere. Why not we start at the present? Right here, right now. My post and your reply to it.
Please list what I have written which is a "spurious" claim.
The Gates quote?
The "on the record" comments made by Biden's senior advisors?

"which he and he alone has created"

That's poppycock, seney. As if the mess of Afghanistan is any one person's fault "alone." I mean, really. This would be like my claiming that Jan 6 was the result of Trump and "Trump alone." That would be equally spurious.

Blaming Biden for the entire 20 year disaster is not what I intended to convey. But, in rereading my comments I can see where one might have interpreted them as such. I apologize.
For the entire Afghanistan experience, I agree 100% with what dneal has said.

Let me try again.
What I was referring to in my comment "which he and he alone has created" was simply what has transpired over the past 5 +/- days. Don't take my word for it, his own senior advisors say so!! He acted against their advice. And, now, has the gall to deny it and maintain he did nothing wrong.
Seriously Joe??? Even CNN does not buy that......!!!!!!

[dneal]

Blame whoever you want. I am not going to defend Biden personally, but there is no need to be spurious in ones claims against him.

What are you talking about? Why even quote my post?

This is why we can’t have discussion here. You and your type go straight to strawmen and insulting. “Spurious?”

[724Seney]

Blame whoever you want. I am not going to defend Biden personally, but there is no need to be spurious in ones claims against him.

What are you talking about? Why even quote my post?

This is why we can’t have discussion here. You and your type go straight to strawmen and insulting. “Spurious?”

dneal, I think TSherbs "spurious" comment was directed towards me and not you.

I have tried to clarify what I meant by that comment which he cited as "spurious." Hopefully, my point is more clear now. If it is understood in the correct context it is anything but "spurious."
Hopefully TSherbs will agree given that Biden's own senior advisors "on the record" words formed the foundation for comment!

[Chuck Naill]

May I add, I’m a complete novice of course. However, even I would have engaged all parties. How can you agree to give a nation over without involvement of the said nation’s leaders, to which you’ve been engaged??!

And, how do you not have a evacuation plan?

I do not think Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden to do any better. Bush could run a gifted baseball club so he got into government….lol!

[TSherbs]

I am not interested in defending Biden's decision. Rail away.

Seney, you began the discussion with a broad swipe at people for being "silent" on Biden, as if not starting threads was some sort of indicator of something. A quick look at these political threads will indicate to you who starts them. I rarely start threads in any of the forums. Just not my thing, mostly.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Blame whoever you want. I am not going to defend Biden personally, but there is no need to be spurious in ones claims against him.

What are you talking about? Why even quote my post?

This is why we can’t have discussion here. You and your type go straight to strawmen and insulting. “Spurious?”See sene's response.

And this is not why we can't have a conversation.

I inadvertently quoted your post. It was an error.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[724Seney]

Seney, you began the discussion with a broad swipe at people for being "silent" on Biden

I guess I was more clear with that comment since you interpreted it 100% correct TSherbs. For four years every time Trump so much as squeaked there was a predictable chorus of "the sky is falling," boo birds. I really don't know how many of them you initiated nor do I care. I'm sure you would acknowledge you have been a frequent participant.

Well, Trump is gone. Meanwhile our current President has quickly proven himself to be a bigger bonehead than his predecessor was on his worst day.

Trust me, had the same group of uber critical people begun to initiate or participate in threads which highlighted all of the really awful and stupid things Biden has done, I would have posted a compliment praising them for proving that they were not partisan, after all. But, no, like the mainstream media they have been silent. Biden is getting a pass on transgressions that folks would have crucified Trump for.............

So, I stand by my comment. The silence has been deafening.

[dneal]

No President in recent history would have any idea of what to do. That's ok. That's why they have cabinet folks, staff and advisors. The biggest differences you see between administrations revolve around that, not really the President. I can pick a topic for any of them - Obama, Trump, Biden, Bush, whoever... - and demonstrate a flip-flop. That's ok too, depending on the particulars.

Trump didn't destroy ISIS. Mattis did. We would have probably seen something similar were he to have been reelected, but I'm not sure Esper was up to the task. To Trump's credit, he let the dogs of war off of the chain. No hand-wringing, no polling, just a decision. Again, it was Mattis that made it happen though.

Biden's administration is largely former Obama folks. Those were the guys who just left Iraq. Those are the guys who gave the Queen of England an iPod and had the President bow to a Saudi. They're largely idealists and/or machine types. They have no idea why their ideas don't work in practice. The border, gas prices, Afghanistan, etc... That's ok, the Republicans have theirs too; ranging from the RINO old-school republican to the John Bolton's / H.R. McMaster / Don Rumsfeld etc... Those morons happily got a President and Congress to invade Iraq while we were at it, and then spent a shit-load of money. Just google "OCO dollars" or "OCO budget". That was the whole separate budget just for the wars and anything remotely related to them. But I digress...

Afghanistan was always doomed to failure. The British period is about as relevant as the Greek invasion. Interesting history, but not much more. The Russian occupation is relevant. There are still minefields. The "Russian-fighters", whether Northern Alliance or Taliban or Arab Al-Qaeda type are still alive.

I spent a year living in the middle of Kandahar. Afghans live a 9th century life, with some modern conveniences in the cities. Fly out to a remote village and it's a little green patch from what little water there is in the middle of a mountainous desert. You're never going to change this place, and anyone is an idiot for pushing it against whatever natural course it takes.

62766

This is a place where Hobbes' State of Nature rules. Everyone is armed. It is tribal. It is harsh and brutal.

There are Americans (not to mention our allies, to a lesser extent) all over the place. World Health Organization. World Food Organization. UN High Commission for Refugees offices. Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Contractors like you can't imagine. All these people should have been evacuated before the first major base closed. They're spread all over the country. Helmand, Herat, Kandahar, Mazar e Sharif, etc... Getting them out now is near impossible. Looks like DOD handled their move, and the NGOs either were blindsided or didn't prepare (a whole-of-government failure).

This was inevitable. Reason Magazine has a pretty fair article about it HERE (https://reason.com/2021/08/18/the-afghanistan-lessons-america-refused-to-learn/?fbclid=IwAR3IVpSOAKRxoR_nFLp0Crvzbi1B7AnFKoqZIZXi hBsSuKQ7Ki-BtDOskU0). Two West Pointer Captains wrote a "From the Taliban" sort of letter. They are exactly the type of red-team critical vulnerability thinkers we have many of - which is why I'm surprised no one thought of the NGOs.

Anyway, I did my part. I tried to push against the Titanic to make my little piece of it better. Doesn't matter if I was successful or not at this point. I'm already seeing my terps sharing who has been hung in the Kandahar stadium, etc... I had six interpreters. All young men, early twenties. I know all their stories. One was killed. His name was Farhad and he was a brave Pashtun warrior who loved Bollywood. He was the most optimistic person I have ever met. He was perpetually happy. He's gone now. Here's to Farhad.

62767


The other five have lived safely in the United States for the last 5 or 6 years. Most have wives and children now. Here's to them too.

---edit---

The link to the Written in Taliban piece is HERE (https://soldiersystems.net/2021/08/16/combat-flipflops-written-in-taliban/)

[TSherbs]

Seney, you began the discussion with a broad swipe at people for being "silent" on Biden

.....
So, I stand by my comment. The silence has been deafening.

Like I said, rail on. I have no interest in defending Biden on this. Fill the "silence" if you don't like it.

And just to put the matter to rest so that you can get back on topic, I have never claimed not to be partisan and biased when it comes to Trump. Don't expect equal play from me. There are other GOP members that I also won't pay much attention to. I am not an equal opportunity critic. I don't have the time or interest in that.

So, back to Biden now. Make some noise, seney!



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

.
. But, no, like the mainstream media they have been silent.

This is not accurate. Every outlet I have looked at has been highlighting the chaos of this withdrawal and has been investigating the wisdom (or lack) of this decision.

I don't know wtf you could possibly be referring to, especially since Fox, the largest network in America, has been all over this (and not just them). Your various swipes against groups seem ill-informed.

Do you recognize that Fox is "mainstream"?



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[724Seney]

.
. But, no, like the mainstream media they have been silent.

This is not accurate. Every outlet I have looked at has been highlighting the chaos of this withdrawal and has been investigating the wisdom (or lack) of this decision.

I don't know wtf you could possibly be referring to, especially since Fox, the largest network in America, has been all over this (and not just them). Your various swipes against groups seem ill-informed.

Do you recognize that Fox is "mainstream"?



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Seriously TSherbs????
1. Are you denying that the mainstream media has totally protected Biden and kept major stories about him off of their networks ever since he became the Democratic nominee?
2. Aren't you aware that Fox News refers to this practice as one characteristic of what they call "the main stream media" and its ongoing bias /active efforts to keep their viewers & subscribers in the dark about information which might influence their opinion about Biden in a negative direction?

Sure, all of them are covering this latest fiasco but, honestly, how could they not?? Every literate human being in the world is aware of and horrified by it. It may well be the USA's darkest day in the eyes of the world.

Talk about ill informed.................

[TSherbs]

But, no, like the mainstream media they have been silent.




Sure, all of them are covering this latest fiasco but, honestly, how could they not??....

Both those statements are yours. You can't simultaneously claim they are "silent" on the matter AND admit that they are all covering it.

Whatever, time for bed where I am...



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[724Seney]

Sure, all of them are covering this latest fiasco but, honestly, how could they not??....

Both those statements are yours. You can't simultaneously claim they are "silent" on the matter AND admit that they are all covering it.

Whatever, time for bed where I am...



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I owned the earlier comment you conveniently misconstrued in your response to the post because I saw the possibility it might have been confusing to someone.
But not this one. You know exactly what I meant. The statements are consistent, congruent and 100% correct.

[adhoc]

I don't like to comment on american politics much typically, but since we're a NATO member and had troops there too, I'll say this was the biggest fuck up in NATO history. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe taliban have met any resistance really, so the people there have clearly sent a message this is what they want.

[Chuck Naill]

I have not experienced NPR protecting Biden. I think what happens is that some networks have stars that are not reporting, but generating opinions. It would not make sense for NPR to run a story by one of these opinion people. However, it is a common for some people to think NPR and PBS to be liberal, and perhaps they are, but I have always figured I was smart enough to tell when a slant is being made.

That said, I do not listen to Fox News for anything. I stopped several years ago when I noticed that my father in law watched it for hours and he stayed pissed off. I also stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh decades ago. It occured to me one day that it was easier to complain than actually become engaged and do something. He should have run for office if he was so sure of what to do.

The New York Times has a special $1 per week online subscription. I enjoy reading the opinion sections and differeing perspectives. It allows me to see more than one side to an issue.

Now back to the topic...LOL!!

[dneal]

It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.

[724Seney]

It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.

Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.

[Chuck Naill]

It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.

The bias or nonsense on fox comes from Hanity and Carlson, I actually like Bret and Chris . I see no equal on PBS or NPR, but it’s a different format

[Chuck Naill]

It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.

Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.

Therein lies the problem. People want predigested news from one source for a few minutes a day. It takes longer to read and listen more broadly

[TSherbs]

... , . I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news.".

AP newswire, Reuters are both rather flat, straight news.

There is no such thing as no bias at all.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

We have to guard against confirmation bias.

[724Seney]

It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.

Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.

Therein lies the problem. People want predigested news from one source for a few minutes a day. It takes longer to read and listen more broadly

Speak for yourself.
That's not what I want....... nor what I said.

[Chuck Naill]

It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.

Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.

Therein lies the problem. People want predigested news from one source for a few minutes a day. It takes longer to read and listen more broadly

Speak for yourself.
That's not what I want....... nor what I said.

What do you want? What do you do now? How much effort should you need to provide to get what you want? Would you prefer just the facts and who do you trust?

[dneal]

It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.

The bias or nonsense on fox comes from Hanity and Carlson, I actually like Bret and Chris . I see no equal on PBS or NPR, but it’s a different format

Never liked Hannity. He just listened to Rush's show, wrote down some talking points and had his show. I've seen a few Carlson clips. He generally makes sense (from the conservative perspective), but I can't stand his voice. I'm ok with Bret, although I don't watch Fox; but I never could stand Chris (Wallace, I assume you mean).

The bias or nonsense is not reserved for the conservatives. The liberals have their nut jobs too. Maddow, Mika, Olberman, O'Donnell...

PBS and NPR are much more traditional in their bias. It's not drastic, but they both lean left. They sneak it in like the anchormen of yesterday, and you're right that there's no real Fox (or MSNBC) opinion analogue for PBS or NPR. They would get their funding cancelled.

I prefer the partisans though. At least they're transparent. Hannity, Maddow, whoever... Pat Buchanan (a regular on the PBS Sunday shows, for those of us old enough to remember) was completely honest with his political philosophy. It was refreshing. There's no way I would vote for him, and there was no way he was ever going to win an election; but he was completely transparent about his beliefs.

[dneal]

... , . I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news.".

AP newswire, Reuters are both rather flat, straight news.

There is no such thing as no bias at all.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Agreed. I like Reuters (and Bloomberg, actually) better than AP.

[Chuck Naill]

There are many ways to learn, but primarily sources are for me the best. If I want to know what someone thinks, I listen to what they say. News organizations that provide direct sources are appreciated.

Saying everyone is biased is unnecessary, but to suggest the air ways are filled with liars and have an agenda is dangerous. Surely people who want can learn how to listen and think without disparaging professional journalists. They do often risk their lives.

[dneal]

It baffles me that you can see the bias of Fox and Rush, but not NPR, PBS or the NYT. I see it in everything, and it's not anything new. Both sides had their more specialist publications. Mother Jones or National Review. The other outlets were supposed to be unbiased. Many if not most still claim to be, although it's clear they aren't.

Opinions are fine. People can evaluate them. Hiding opinions in news is not fine. Manipulating or omitting facts is not fine. It subtly shifts your thinking. Call it propaganda or information operations, it has a long history and is well studied. Intent is irrelevant, and it's the effects I'm concerned with.

They use adjectives to characterize the "news" piece, inserting connotation to influence the reader. "The chaotic withdrawal", for example, characterizes and implies many things that may or may not be true. It's not the same as saying "the sweet candy", where the adjective is used to provide an additional fact.

Agree. I wish there was someplace I could go and just get the "news." No opinion, no editorial, just the news.
That said, no list of media outlets which contain a huge amount of bias is complete without CNN. IMO, they are the worst of the most commonly viewed and/or read outlets.

The Washington Examiner isn't bad. It leans right about as much as NPR leans left. As for "mainstream" media, I browse the headlines to see what each side's narrative is for the day or week, and I rarely read or watch/listen to anything further anymore. There's a wealth of information out there, from qualified and credible people, on about any subject. You can get whatever info you want. Frankly, there are a lot of more interesting subjects than each side's narrative on a particular day.

[Chuck Naill]

I see it differently. Instead of dreaming where you think someone is leaning, just listen or read. Then you can decide.

It’s not fake news, or political leaning when you quote. What I noticed with Trumpians is that that didn’t believe he actually said what he said and he would deny he said what he said. Let’s say you really want to know what he said about John McCain ( and forget whether you like McCain or not). Does anyone here think they could find out? Did only liberal sources carry the information? Have you checked your sources?

So, this is the problem with painting journalists and new organizations with a broad brush.

[dneal]

We're already to the "Trumpians", while complaining about broad brushes...

so much for discussion.

[Chuck Naill]

Poor anaolgy.

[kazoolaw]

#36: vague and weak post.

Chuck, you insist journalists aren't, or a least shouldn't be called out as, biased.

"I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. " (Emphasis added)

Your comment please.

[TSherbs]

Chuck, you insist journalists aren't, or a least shouldn't be called out as, biased.

That wasn't what he said.


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Poor anaolgy.

Note to self: Chuck doesn't know what an analogy is.

[724Seney]

Poor anaolgy.

Note to self: Chuck doesn't know what an analogy is.

:haha:

[dneal]

#36: vague and weak post.

Chuck, you insist journalists aren't, or a least shouldn't be called out as, biased.

"I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. " (Emphasis added)

Your comment please.


Yes, Chris Matthews. Former aide to Tip O'Neill, and many others. Failed political candidate.

Then there's George Stephanopoulos, who just interviewed the President of the United States on ABC News, about Afghanistan.

George Stephanopoulos has a Masters in Theology and worked on the Dukakis and Clinton campaigns. He served in the Clinton Whitehouse.

But it's unreasonable to be skeptical and consider that there might just be some bias present from these now "journalists".

[Chuck Naill]

#36: vague and weak post.

Chuck, you insist journalists aren't, or a least shouldn't be called out as, biased.

"I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. " (Emphasis added)

Your comment please.


Perhaps the best comment is to explain what I do. I read people I know who have a different perspective than I do. For example, I might read about the Black Lives Matter movement to try to understand what the group thinks. It is not that I disagree or think they are wrong. Let's say you hear someone disparaging the movement either on the air or in your group of friend. Since you've taken the time to find out what they think, you will be better able to determine if what you are hearing from your sources is true or not.

Secondly, if I am reading an opinion article I already know by the headline what's coming, but I read it anyway. For me, I am more informed. If I only read information that leads to what I have decided is true, then I am not really informed, but having my bias confirmed. It seems to me this is where most people are in their search for information and it is dangerous.

During the Vietnam era parents listened and believed the government. Their children were the ones protesting. The parents wanted their children to stop protesting and trust the government they trusted in WW2. Eventually it was found out the failures of the government. Today the same thing is occuring. The people who don't go along to get along are in a position to be more informed and I think objective.

[Chuck Naill]

"Why Biden’s Lack of Strategic Patience Led to Disaster"

This is an opinion piece from the New York Times this morning. If you call yourself a believer the Times is biased, why would they print an op-ed with such a title? This one reason I take issue with making blanket statements about journalists and agencies. Your opinions don't support the truth, but it probably makes you feel good, or more likely smug.

[Chuck Naill]

Poor anaolgy.

Note to self: Chuck doesn't know what an analogy is.

Maybe not, but I voted and I am vaccinated. I did it for my family in both cases.

[TSherbs]

"Why Biden’s Lack of Strategic Patience Led to Disaster"

This is an opinion piece from the New York Times this morning. If you call yourself a believer the Times is biased, why would they print an op-ed with such a title? This one reason I take issue with making blanket statements about journalists and agencies. Your opinions don't support the truth, but it probably makes you feel good, or more likely smug.

The New York Times is one of the best newspapers on the planet. Is it perfect, no. Has it had professional lapses, yes. Does its news and features tend to slant progressive in tone, yes. Is the quality of its writing and reporting among the best in the world...yes. Is it oracular truth from God...no.

edited to add: I read my local paper 100 times more often than I read the NYT. But I can clearly tell which one is a better work of journalism.

[dneal]

Failed Policymakers Have No Shame on Afghanistan. (www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/failed-policymakers-have-no-shame-on-afghanistan?fbclid=IwAR1nWFEilBS4ME-6fFXJCBb8bMBeD62uxdPbNu7pv9nIXFyAVEna3TgpOGs)

[Chuck Naill]

Failed Policymakers Have No Shame on Afghanistan. (www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/failed-policymakers-have-no-shame-on-afghanistan?fbclid=IwAR1nWFEilBS4ME-6fFXJCBb8bMBeD62uxdPbNu7pv9nIXFyAVEna3TgpOGs)

Thank you. It’s supports Biden’s decision.

[kazoolaw]

"Why Biden’s Lack of Strategic Patience Led to Disaster"

This is an opinion piece from the New York Times this morning. If you call yourself a believer the Times is biased, why would they print an op-ed with such a title? Because sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming, the visuals so disgusting, the policies of telling Americans they need to rely on the Taliban to get to the airport (subsquently closed) to escape the takeover which would never happen for at least 90 days and the visual of murders in the street so incontrovertible that even the biased mind can't ignore what it sees.This one reason I take issue with making blanket statements about journalists and agencies. Your opinions don't support the truth, but it probably makes you feel good, or more likely smug.Apparently a blanket statement you can adopt.

Sometimes you can't call a pile of manure a bed of roses.

[Chuck Naill]

I honestly think your comprehension is compromised. Slow down. Now what is the writer trying to say…lol!

[kazoolaw]

CN-
No, I don't believe you "honestly" think my comprehension is compromised. You are sliding off point without responding. Please take some time away, and try to compose yourself.

[Chuck Naill]

I’m wasting time here. If others are interested, please respond to the topic.

[Chip]

Sorry. There's no graceful way to lose a war.

Rather than blaming Biden, why don't you look at those who got us there in the first place: Bush the Lesser (whose Daddy problem pivoted him to another costly debacle in Iraq), Tony Blair, the cheerleaders in the media (if it bleeds, it leads), and the stupid legislators who jumped on the bandwagon for war, as a way of getting more votes.

Two lessons: 1) violence and military occupation is a bad way to teach democratic values; 2) Don't trust the military to tell the truth or judge their own performance. They will lie and obfuscate to get more money and more war toys.

[kazoolaw]

[QUOTE=dneal;333577]To me there are three overarching themes or topics, each complex in its own right.

1. Nation Building. It's a dumb idea. It worked twice, with two of the most rule-oriented societies on the planet. It has failed every time since. Doesn't matter if it's "regime change" via CIA coup or straight up military action. Doesn't work for a lot of reasons, and there's no real obligation (moral or legal) to do it.

2. 20-Year War. Nope. It was a series of twenty, one-year wars. We never committed to it. People were much more worried about their report cards than any real progress. Lots of money was made, in every way you can imagine, by many nationalities.

3. Responsibility. I once told an Afghan that we couldn't give them peace. We could only give them a chance. Truth is, they had their chance. They weren't willing to fight for it. The Taliban are, and that's why they're in Kabul.

Lots of money and careers were made in 20 years. A lot of idiots dreamed we would turn it into some genteel western society. See those pictures from the 70's? Women in mini-skirts in Kabul?

I always said I would be happy if we could just get it up to Deadwood.

We've walked away. We should not go back except to carpet bomb somebody with a wing of B52's. We do need to make a considerable effort to get as many citizens out as we can though.

I don't blame Joe, although it could have been much more orderly than the sneaking away in the middle of the night bullshit we saw, and the mess that has led to. I don't blame Trump either, or Obama or even Bush really. People will bludgeon each other politically over this for a while. It doesn't really matter if that's all the use people derive from it. D's and R's both voted for it, and had their turns administering it. This is a failure of the ideologues. The "smart" people. The bureaucrats and the bureaucracy. John Boltons and Susan Rices (pick others, left or right, if you like).

It's done. Another empire consumed. Close the chapter on that book.



No President in recent history would have any idea of what to do. That's ok. That's why they have cabinet folks, staff and advisors. The biggest differences you see between administrations revolve around that, not really the President. I can pick a topic for any of them - Obama, Trump, Biden, Bush, whoever... - and demonstrate a flip-flop. That's ok too, depending on the particulars.

Trump didn't destroy ISIS. Mattis did. We would have probably seen something similar were he to have been reelected, but I'm not sure Esper was up to the task. To Trump's credit, he let the dogs of war off of the chain. No hand-wringing, no polling, just a decision. Again, it was Mattis that made it happen though.

Biden's administration is largely former Obama folks. Those were the guys who just left Iraq. Those are the guys who gave the Queen of England an iPod and had the President bow to a Saudi. They're largely idealists and/or machine types. They have no idea why their ideas don't work in practice. The border, gas prices, Afghanistan, etc... That's ok, the Republicans have theirs too; ranging from the RINO old-school republican to the John Bolton's / H.R. McMaster / Don Rumsfeld etc... Those morons happily got a President and Congress to invade Iraq while we were at it, and then spent a shit-load of money. Just google "OCO dollars" or "OCO budget". That was the whole separate budget just for the wars and anything remotely related to them. But I digress...

Afghanistan was always doomed to failure. The British period is about as relevant as the Greek invasion. Interesting history, but not much more. The Russian occupation is relevant. There are still minefields. The "Russian-fighters", whether Northern Alliance or Taliban or Arab Al-Qaeda type are still alive.

I spent a year living in the middle of Kandahar. Afghans live a 9th century life, with some modern conveniences in the cities. Fly out to a remote village and it's a little green patch from what little water there is in the middle of a mountainous desert. You're never going to change this place, and anyone is an idiot for pushing it against whatever natural course it takes.

62766

This is a place where Hobbes' State of Nature rules. Everyone is armed. It is tribal. It is harsh and brutal.

There are Americans (not to mention our allies, to a lesser extent) all over the place. World Health Organization. World Food Organization. UN High Commission for Refugees offices. Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Contractors like you can't imagine. All these people should have been evacuated before the first major base closed. They're spread all over the country. Helmand, Herat, Kandahar, Mazar e Sharif, etc... Getting them out now is near impossible. Looks like DOD handled their move, and the NGOs either were blindsided or didn't prepare (a whole-of-government failure).

This was inevitable. Reason Magazine has a pretty fair article about it HERE (https://reason.com/2021/08/18/the-afghanistan-lessons-america-refused-to-learn/?fbclid=IwAR3IVpSOAKRxoR_nFLp0Crvzbi1B7AnFKoqZIZXi hBsSuKQ7Ki-BtDOskU0). Two West Pointer Captains wrote a "From the Taliban" sort of letter. They are exactly the type of red-team critical vulnerability thinkers we have many of - which is why I'm surprised no one thought of the NGOs.

Anyway, I did my part. I tried to push against the Titanic to make my little piece of it better. Doesn't matter if I was successful or not at this point. I'm already seeing my terps sharing who has been hung in the Kandahar stadium, etc... I had six interpreters. All young men, early twenties. I know all their stories. One was killed. His name was Farhad and he was a brave Pashtun warrior who loved Bollywood. He was the most optimistic person I have ever met. He was perpetually happy. He's gone now. Here's to Farhad.

62767


The other five have lived safely in the United States for the last 5 or 6 years. Most have wives and children now. Here's to them too.

---edit---

The link to the Written in Taliban piece is HERE (https://soldiersystems.net/2021/08/16/combat-flipflops-written-in-taliban/)

In light of the bombing your post, and its links, deserve repeating.
Thank you.

[Ron Z]

I worked in professional radio in one capacity or another for 32 years. Lots of time (about 11/12 years) on air, live, listening to news casts, editing wire copy (AP and UPI), lots of time on the road as the engineer, to translators and stations listening to NPR and CBC in addition to other stations. It was interesting to watch the spin on a story develop after an initial event, and then then settle down to an echo chamber response on all of the liberal media. Its as if an email went out with the talking points on the subject. CBC is liberal, but then they didn't pretend to be unbiased either. What is not reported, the details that are left out, or are dropped change a story as much as what you are told. All that it takes is dropped sentence to make what one would consider to be a reasonable action in one hours news cast, to a total loner idiot in the next hours reading of what was otherwise the same script. Today there is no pretense of even, unbiased reporting. Its all about spin, with the result that my BS meter is pegged with both liberal and conservative sources.

Every administration in the last 20 years screwed up in Afghanistan. The original mistake was going in. Biden just ended things with a spectacular screw up.

[Chuck Naill]

Read broadly and don’t depend on radio or TV.

[TSherbs]

CNN: McConnell: 'There isn't going to be an impeachment' of Biden.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/01/politics/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-biden/index.html

Of course not. What has been done with the impeachment process (since 1990) for political reasons is a travesty.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Lest we forget, an interesting read. I read Bolton's books for an insider perspective.
https://www.businessinsider.com/john-bolton-impossible-to-rewrite-history-on-mike-pompeo-taliban-deal-2021-8#:~:text=Pompeo%20and%20Trump%20have%20come%20und er%20attack%20over,not%20turn%20the%20country%20in to%20a%20terrorist%20base.

[kazoolaw]

In a bombshell report on Aug. 31, Reuters reported on an audio recording of a July 23 call between Biden and then-Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. It released a transcript. In the call, Biden stated, “I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things aren’t going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban.”

Biden then gave Ghani his marching orders: “And there is a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-call-before-afghan-collapse-biden-pressed-ghani-change-perception-2021-08-31/

[Chuck Naill]

It sounded like a pep talk according to the linked Reuters article.

So, you’re a coach or manager, you tell your team that whether they believe it or not, they can win.

[kazoolaw]

Not exactly: whether or not it's true we have to tell people we're winning. Just don't pretend you're surprised later.

[Chuck Naill]

Winning is the final score. You encourage people they can win. If I read what you posted correctly, the government outweighed the Taliban 300k vs 80k ??!?? I won’t dis Biden for trying.

[dneal]

It sounded like a pep talk according to the linked Reuters article.

So, you’re a coach or manager, you tell your team that whether they believe it or not, they can win.

Funny that didn’t apply to the Trump transcript.

[Chuck Naill]

What’s even more funny is you can’t tell the difference. However, this tells me you didn’t read the transcript of the January 6 speech. Wow!!

[dneal]

What’s even more funny is you can’t tell the difference. However, this tells me you didn’t read the transcript of the January 6 speech. Wow!!

Four minutes. I lost the bet to my wife, but at least you gave us a good chuckle.

[Chuck Naill]

What’s even more funny is you can’t tell the difference. However, this tells me you didn’t read the transcript of the January 6 speech. Wow!!

Four minutes. I lost the bet to my wife, but at least you gave us a good chuckle.

I laughed my ass off at her comments last night. Thanks!!

[Chuck Naill]

Did you need me to explain the difference to her? At least you said she got the vaccine.

[Chuck Naill]

Being an English major it may not be that evident…

[Chuck Naill]

Does she expect an ICU bed? Would she kick out the 8 year old who can’t get vaccinated?

[dneal]

Chuck, that is the most pathetic trolling I have seen so far. A series of posts at 1:35, 1:36, 1:37 and 2:15.

I think you are:

63097

Which is:

63098

[Chuck Naill]

You are the one who chose to bring your wife and her disrespectful comments into the conversatioin. Of course, there may not even be a wife. I think you are getting disparate.

[dneal]

Chuck, you can't troll me.

[Chuck Naill]

It sure seems I have been lately.

[dneal]

It sure seems I have been lately.

LOL, at least you’re consistent in your delusions.

[Chuck Naill]

It sure seems I have been lately.

LOL, at least you’re consistent in your delusions.

😂😂😂

[kazoolaw]

I think you are getting disparate.

Chuck, you silver tongued devil. I know, we all make mistakes on the keyboard, and have been betrayed by autofill, but this is one made chuckle.

Be well.

[Chuck Naill]

I think you are getting disparate.

Chuck, you silver tongued devil. I know, we all make mistakes on the keyboard, and have been betrayed by autofill, but this is one made chuckle.

Be well.

Good nothing burger…😂😂

[dneal]

Listening to the local libertarian this morning and greasing the tractor got me to thinking a little bit broader about Afghanistan. The personal thoughts have been reconciled.

This really is an obvious failure to deal with a real enemy. Truth is that we were beaten by Pakistan, not the Taliban. We turned a blind eye to it the whole time, because we needed their ground lines of communication to get materiel in. They shut it off for a couple of months, and we flew in everything for the theater. It was painful. Pakistan's support of the Taliban (and Al-Qaeda... where was Osama hiding at?) is patently obvious.

But Pakistan isn't the real enemy. How did Pakistan and Afghanistan get so radicalized in the first place? Saudi Arabia. Read Steven Schwartz, or look him up on YouTube or something. He is a Sufi Muslim (if I recall correctly) who wrote "The Two Faces of Islam". Really what he is discussing is two ends of a theological spectrum in Sunni Islam. A difference of 7th Day Adventists and Methodists - and that will make more sense to the American Christian community so I apologize to our international friends.

That's slanderous really to the 7th Day Adventists, and I'm happy to substitute if there are suggestions; because one end of the spectrum is ideologically fundamentalist Islam. There is a lot of history on it (Wahhabism). It's even woven into the Lawrence of Arabia story. The chief zealots/malcontents were once suppressed by the Ottoman Empire. As it became the "sick man" of Europe, and the British and French began contesting for the Levant and rest of region; it was free to run. Then we found oil, and it funded the spread of strict south-Arabian Hanbali Islam (Turkey and northern Arabs tend to practice Hanafi Islam, much more tolerant and why the Sufi and "whirling dervishes" are in Turkey and not Kuwait.

Saudi petro-dollars have spread Hanbali Islam globally. Pakistan, Indonesia, deep into the Horn of Africa, every Western European country, Russia/Chechnya. Many of those issues (Chechnya) are potentially legitimate. But Hanbali Islam offers disaffected second generation Muslim boys/young men an attractive ideology - not unlike the appeal of communism to western youth. Each is a road to ruin. And we buddy right up to the Saudi's. Whether he knew it or not, Trump's opening up of the American taps and slamming oil prices is an important piece of leverage on SA. I don't think anyone really thought about that, because there's too much money selling them F-15's.

I barely scratched the surface of the history and complexity in those few sentences, but radical, derived from Hanbali Islam, remains a problem. It is coming primarily from Saudi Arabia. They are funding it as I type this. They're making a killing on gas again and spending their money on U.S. technology and European construction. We turn a blind eye to the real problem.

[Chuck Naill]

From a Repuiblican pundit (Brent Stephens) who voted for Biden.

"We are a country that could not keep a demagogue from the White House; could not stop an insurrectionist mob from storming the Capitol; could not win (or at least avoid losing) a war against a morally and technologically retrograde enemy; cannot conquer a disease for which there are safe and effective vaccines; and cannot bring itself to trust the government, the news media, the scientific establishment, the police or any other institution meant to operate for the common good."

"Instead, Biden has become the emblem of the hour: headstrong but shaky, ambitious but inept. He seems to be the last person in America to realize that, whatever the theoretical merits of the decision to withdraw our remaining troops from Afghanistan, the military and intelligence assumptions on which it was built were deeply flawed, the manner in which it was executed was a national humiliation and a moral betrayal, and the timing was catastrophic."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/07/opinion/biden-failed-afghanistan.html

[dneal]

A strictly opinion piece at WSJ. Although I don't agree with every point completely, I found it well argued. The author I believe correctly identifies the initial push of the pendulum, and the (now clearly) inevitable result of: Trump. I do wonder what the orange one will do in the future, and this hypothesis is as good as any.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-biden-2024-2020-president-election-immigration-crime-critical-race-theory-covid-11631044792

That might be behind a paywall. If it is, let me know and I'll cut and paste the pertinent text. As an aside, I've recently subscribed to and been using Apple News+ (really it just comes with the iCloud package I have). It is pretty much every news source from the "media bias" diagrams posted in a different thread. Oh, it has magazines too. Pretty much everything you could want, from cooking to cars to cabinetry to celebrities to the cosmos. I'm overwhelmed.

Anyway, I'm often asked what news or news sources I read. Now it is this. I follow the national media, to include the biased ones. Basically I scan headlines to see what the current narrative is amongst the two mobs. Occasionally I'll run across one that attracts my attention enough to read, and occasionally I'm rewarded with something decent like this. Generally I just move on though, to topics I follow (about as diverse as the magazine selection). Apple curates what I follow and what I read, and pulls articles from all sources and highlights the ones it thinks you'll like. You can tell it to show more or less of a particular article, further influencing the algorithm, if you like.

That might sound like a recipe for reinforcing a political echo-chamber. It certainly could be, and easily. It's useful for "cars" as a topic, or "woodworking", as examples though. I pick one or two of each extreme so I can watch the political noise-meter, and unfollow the rest. Then I can get more Economist, bon Apetit, Smithsonian, whatever. I'm about five days into playing with it, and it saves me a lot of work curating manually, so to speak. If you pay for Apple cloud stuff, you might look into if you already have it.

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal, I applaud your recent changes in how you communicate here.

I’d probably prefer to do my own because of the reasons you said.

Regarding the article you posted, I am surprised and glad at the same time. Whether you (generic you) liked him or not, Trump was not good for the nation. We are polarized and that’s dangerous.

I’m hoping for a Kasich, Romney, or Paul Ryan. That said, I’m not sure they would have left Afghanistan any better.

We need infrastructure or at least WIFI for all as well as healthcare and education for all and not just those who can afford if we hope to complete globally.

[dneal]

@Chuck Naill, I'm glad you seem to have joined the initiative toward civility.

I'm indifferent to Trump, actually. His antics aren't new, and we've all watched him throughout his life/career. People didn't vote for him for him because they like his spray tan or his unique hairstyle. They voted for him because a loud brash man said some truths that resonated, and they figured what the hell, or even worse is they figured what do I have to lose... How bad are things, and what things are that mad that it would make so many people vote for Trump? That's the piece of the article that the left seems to miss. Green new deals, immigration, clean energy, etc... They were all presented to the average American by the left as a change they were going to get whether they liked it or not. Obama, AOC, Bernie, Liz Warren, etc... That is how we all got Trump.

Those that voted for him a second time ignored the increased obnoxiousness because they put more value on gas prices, the economy as a whole, Trump calling out NATO and China, etc... His policy record and success, given that the congress and bureaucracy tried their best to slow-roll him, is actually impressive. But all that gets lost in the narrative.

Now the narrative is so polarized each side just shouts the same slogans at each other. That has bothered me for a great while. Trump didn't start it, and Obama probably didn't either. Those two in particular were not the average politician. They each changed the game in a lot of ways. I can go back further, as I'm sure you can too, and pontificate; but that milk was spilt a long time ago.

There is one thing from "days of yore" that popped in my head recently. I don't remember the specifics, and you could probably find several examples of it if you searched; but it was a Crossfire type Sunday show with all the guys we remember. Buckley, Buchanan, Rangel, Frank... you remember those days. Someone made the point of how they could be so politically different and still be friends. The reply was:

"We disagree, but I never question their motive. Once you do that, it's over".

That's what we see. Trump is a Racist. Obama is a Communist. Maybe there's substance behind those accusations, but it's motive-focused so I stop listening/reading/watching. I think this is the problem with the majority of the media. "We" (Americans as a whole) were happy to sit around the table or grill and talk politics and motive. The news generally left that out, and we believed what they told us. Truth or not, it was consensus and reasonable. Now entirely too much of the "news" is just opinion, which is fine if it's a thesis-supporting points and conclusion; but anymore it's not. It's assignment of motive. We can't agree on truth or facts, we're so busy ignoring it and shouting motive. That is what is a danger to the country - and it isn't just happening in the U.S.

[Chuck Naill]

Mark Sheilds made that statement once on a broadcast.

I've watched Trump throught his career as well. I read books to understand different perspectives to see if I was going to far. I wasn't. Whatever his motives are were never important. I just focused on what he did and what he said. Motives don't matter if your dead, you're still dead.

I feel that everyone should have an opportunity. I know African Americans have not had the same American experience white people have enjoyed. The same for women, Asians, and brown people as well. Liberal means being open to new ideas and making changes that improve everyone's opportunity. It will mean different things to different people.

[dneal]

I think everyone does have an opportunity. As Morgan Freeman said, the bus leaves town every day. If people are willing to trek thousands of miles, ride in a shipping container across the Pacific, etc... To have an opportunity here... well I don't have a lot of sympathy for an American citizen that bemoans anything about their "plight". Get to work, and you can succeed. Fact.

There are social safety nets. I am ok with that as long as they aren't safety nests. We have a problem with "welfare cliff". Can people talk about finding a "golden mean" with policy? A balance between virtue and vice, so to speak? Americans are a generous people, but they don't like getting taken. Is there a middle ground without ascribing motive?

I think so, but not in today's political climate.

[Chuck Naill]

I would suggest to any white person reading they educate themselves in black history in the US. Go back to forced migration, slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, lynchings. red lining. not being able to vote, and the Civil Rights movement. Unless you do, you're perspective will be lacking in accuracy and that's all I have to say.

Compare generation wealth amoung races and how it occurs. Compare how the US treated Western Euorpean's coming with regard to land and how it treated former slaves. Compare union membership and white fear of free labor.

As MLK said, "you don't tell a bootless man to pull himself up by his boot straps". W.E.B. DuBois's The Souls of Black Folk is a good primer.

[dneal]

I would suggest to any white person reading they educate themselves in black history in the US. Go back to forced migration, slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, lynchings. red lining. not being able to vote, and the Civil Rights movement. Unless you do, you're perspective will be lacking in accuracy and that's all I have to say.

Compare generation wealth amoung races and how it occurs. Compare how the US treated Western Euorpean's coming with regard to land and how it treated former slaves. Compare union membership and white fear of free labor.

As MLK said, "you don't tell a bootless man to pull himself up by his boot straps". W.E.B. DuBois's The Souls of Black Folk is a good primer.

The problem I have with this type of post is that it is full of, well, motive (and implication, although it's not entirely clear what your implication/conclusion/solution is).

The problem with where you are going is that although emotionally satisfying (for you anyway, it seems); you can't apply the logic universally. We can't right the "wrongs" of history. This is a problem with Israel/Palestine. Both sides say it's theirs, and point to different points in history. Should we find the Canaanites and give that region back to them? Should we make Israel pay reparations to the Midianites? Every man was slain, every woman made a concubine, and every child a slave.

Pick the region, and I'll show you human atrocities. This notion that only white people did bad things doesn't make a lot of sense.

I believe MLK also said something about judging content of character instead of color of skin. Maybe I was dreaming...

[Chuck Naill]

I don’t have the time nor inclination to tutor you in American history.

What I did, with the help of others, was to read several to many books on the topic. I will add this and no more, the information is readily available in most local libraries in the US.

After you bring yourself up to speed, you will be embarrassed that you ever said it might be “emotionally satisfying “. That’s laughable.

I figured it was only a matter of time until you ran off the rails with your new and improved attitude.

[dneal]

Chuck, I thought you wanted civil conversation. If reading something you disagree with triggers you to the point you are unable or unwilling to articulate your point, perhaps you should take a break? The virus and politics have many people on edge and not thinking clearly.

[Chuck Naill]

What is taught in American HS as American History is a crime.

For those whites thinking it’s a level playing field either, dig deeper or shame shame on you for thinking learning ended when you got your diploma.

[dneal]

You know Chuck, your tactic of "I have read the correct stuff and you haven't so I'm right and you're wrong" (I'm paraphrasing, of course), might be why you have so much difficulty here.

Making a point that generally consists of a thesis, supporting point(s) and conclusion is often much better received. It's certainly easier to follow than imagining what stuff you potentially have read, that you say you won't "tutor" anyone on and won't even share. Your rebuttal essentially consists of "go to the library". I'm sorry, but I don't think you'll have much luck with that. It's simply not very compelling.




I read books to understand different perspectives to see if I was going to far. I wasn't.


I would suggest to any white person reading they educate themselves in black history in the US. Go back to forced migration, slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, lynchings. red lining. not being able to vote, and the Civil Rights movement. Unless you do, you're perspective will be lacking in accuracy and that's all I have to say.


I don’t have the time nor inclination to tutor you in American history.

What I did, with the help of others, was to read several to many books on the topic. I will add this and no more, the information is readily available in most local libraries in the US.