Page 87 of 98 FirstFirst ...
37
77
85
86
87
88
89
97
... LastLast
  1. #1721
    The Unstoppable Force Gaidax's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    20,781
    Chile and Argentina match countries in EU when it comes to HDI, they are not bloody Norway, but they would make pretty ok EU members.

    And Venezuela's problem is not US, it's Chavez and his gang robbing and destroying the country and then the bus driver finishing it off.

  2. #1722
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidax View Post
    Chile and Argentina match countries in EU when it comes to HDI, they are not bloody Norway, but they would make pretty ok EU members.

    And Venezuela's problem is not US, it's Chavez and his gang robbing and destroying the country and then the bus driver finishing it off.
    You really are clueless on this issue yet speak confidently… why is this always the case with people who know little about a subject?

  3. #1723
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidax View Post
    Chile and Argentina match countries in EU when it comes to HDI, they are not bloody Norway, but they would make pretty ok EU members.

    And Venezuela's problem is not US, it's Chavez and his gang robbing and destroying the country and then the bus driver finishing it off.
    Chile had its government overthrown by an US backed fascist coup that started a very bloody reign of terror.
    But thats the hill you want to die on I suppose.

  4. #1724
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidax View Post
    Chile and Argentina match countries in EU when it comes to HDI, they are not bloody Norway, but they would make pretty ok EU members.
    They have been sliding recently, so they would be close to the bottom.
    In terms of corruption Uruguay would be sort of mid-EU, Chile make it, but Argentina would be problematic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidax View Post
    And Venezuela's problem is not US, it's Chavez and his gang robbing and destroying the country and then the bus driver finishing it off.
    Yes, pretty spot on - based on listening to actual Venezuelans.

  5. #1725
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    They have been sliding recently, so they would be close to the bottom.
    In terms of corruption Uruguay would be sort of mid-EU, Chile make it, but Argentina would be problematic.


    Yes, pretty spot on - based on listening to actual Venezuelans.
    Hasn't latin america been like unstable for decades at this point? Going back and fort between stability and progress and then to corruption and instability like Brazil for example?

  6. #1726
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Yes, pretty spot on - based on listening to actual Venezuelans.
    A few years ago, actual Venezuelans had the choice between a US supported leader (Gaido), and Maduro.

    They chose to stand up to the US and stick with Maduro.

  7. #1727
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega10 View Post
    A few years ago, actual Venezuelans had the choice between a US supported leader (Gaido), and Maduro.
    In a fraudulent election where it seemed that they chose Gaido, but Maduro faked the election and kept power.

    Read more in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%...orship_charges
    If you want to confirm that he is in fact faking elections as a dictator.

    Several millions have since fled Venezuela, since the "Maduro diet" isn't that popular; https://www.americasquarterly.org/ar...rom-venezuela/

    But enough distractions. Afghanistan isn't in S. America .
    Last edited by Forogil; 2021-09-15 at 03:48 PM.

  8. #1728
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    In a fraudulent election where it seemed that they chose Gaido, but Maduro faked the election and kept power.

    Several millions have since fled Venezuela, since the "Maduro diet" isn't that popular; https://www.americasquarterly.org/ar...rom-venezuela/

    But enough distractions. Afghanistan isn't in S. America .
    No evidence exists that Gaido would be the more popular choice, he is not exactly well-liked over in Venezuela.

  9. #1729
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    I don't know how much I agree with this OP ED written by an ex-CIA guy. But he does cite the following:

    Over 60 percent of the Taliban’s revenue — from $100 million to $400 million, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction — came from taxes on or and the processing and trafficking of the country’s opium crop, with high-grade heroin flooding the European market and increasing amounts reaching the U.S.
    I'm of mixed feelings about this. For one, the only way to shut that down is to, well, basically attack the Taliban again. Just economically. The other side, is if the USA is going to let the Taliban run the place on their own...ugh, I hate even saying that...but, losing the literal majority of their funds won't slide, and we'd need people there to enforce the ban which doesn't sound like "run the place on their own".

    So there are two options, both bad. An already ill-suited-for-governing Taliban with most of its money gone? Or a country run by US sanctioned drug lords?

  10. #1730
    The Unstoppable Force Gaidax's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    20,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I don't know how much I agree with this OP ED written by an ex-CIA guy. But he does cite the following:



    I'm of mixed feelings about this. For one, the only way to shut that down is to, well, basically attack the Taliban again. Just economically. The other side, is if the USA is going to let the Taliban run the place on their own...ugh, I hate even saying that...but, losing the literal majority of their funds won't slide, and we'd need people there to enforce the ban which doesn't sound like "run the place on their own".

    So there are two options, both bad. An already ill-suited-for-governing Taliban with most of its money gone? Or a country run by US sanctioned drug lords?
    If US/EU would care so much, they would simply pay. I see Taliban already asking for $$.

    I'm not some Taliban fanboy, but they already did a pretty effective ban in past and boy do they know how to enforce it too.

    Overall, people should get used to reality that they are the government there for the foreseeable future and that's how it is. Nobody going to be invading Afghanistan anytime soon, unless they want to have their heads on a pike too alongside past invaders.
    Last edited by Gaidax; 2021-09-15 at 04:01 PM.

  11. #1731
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    GOP Senators introduce a bill to designate the Taliban as a terrorist group.

    "What's wrong with that?"

    For me? Nothing. I've been clear on the subject. I'm just curious whether these GOP Senators will also admit Trump negotiated with them instead of the Afghani government, and therefore, directly and specifically negotiated with terrorists.

  12. #1732
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/polit...tan/index.html

    Interesting information from Woodward and Costa's upcoming book. Apparently Miley and Blinken were both in favor of keeping the US in Afghanistan for longer, with a much more protracted drawdown.

    Biden said nah, we been there too long already and staying there longer won't benefit us any more than the previous 20 years. If true, good on him.

  13. #1733
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    GOP Senators introduce a bill to designate the Taliban as a terrorist group.

    "What's wrong with that?"

    For me? Nothing. I've been clear on the subject. I'm just curious whether these GOP Senators will also admit Trump negotiated with them instead of the Afghani government, and therefore, directly and specifically negotiated with terrorists.
    Has the Taliban ever attacked US outside Afganistan? Guessing no honestly so you want to designate them as terrorist for taking back there country?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/polit...tan/index.html

    Interesting information from Woodward and Costa's upcoming book. Apparently Miley and Blinken were both in favor of keeping the US in Afghanistan for longer, with a much more protracted drawdown.

    Biden said nah, we been there too long already and staying there longer won't benefit us any more than the previous 20 years. If true, good on him.
    If the US only stayed 1 month longer I'm sure things would be different
    /S

    Whatever happend was going to happen regardless (including the chaos that try to flee) unless the US decided that having a corrupt local government that they can control is not in their own best long term intrest. Any time line of US withdrawal would have still resulted in the same.

  14. #1734
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    Has the Taliban ever attacked US outside Afganistan?
    Wow. Fucking seriously?

    In 1996 Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai, former president of Afghanistan, was caught by the Taliban trying to flee the country. He was dragged into the street and lynched. After effectively taking over the country, they cement their rule by subjugating the population and murdering those who resist.

    There's also the matter of UN resolution 1267. The date is 1999. Those are terrorist sanctions.

    And let's not rule out their actions while occupied by Russia -- even if they weren't the group known as the Taliban yet, it was the same human beings. And just because they were going after Russia didn't make it any better.

    Oh, and of course, the fact that we asked them to turn over Osama bin Laden and they refused. Which, if you'd actually been reading my posts, has been my point all along.

    I reject the implication that the Taliban can't be terrorists unless they attack the US or its people. That's deplorable. What the hell, man?

    I reject the implication that their actions before we invaded don't count, or just as bad, that you didn't know what they were.

    I reject the implication that I designated them terrorists because they, as an un-elected militant group that ruled by threats force and murder before we arrived, were taking back "their" country.

    And I reject the implication that, even if they hadn't been caught sheltering and aiding known terrorists groups before we arrived (which they were, the UN was resolutionly clear), that directly, specifically and publicly siding with and protecting Osama bin Laden after 9/11 wasn't enough to label them as terrorists all by itself. This wasn't "we agree with what he did" it was "we're siding with him with our very lives".

    Where the hell did this even come from? What's wrong with you, man?

  15. #1735
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Wow. Fucking seriously?

    In 1996 Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai, former president of Afghanistan, was caught by the Taliban trying to flee the country. He was dragged into the street and lynched. After effectively taking over the country, they cement their rule by subjugating the population and murdering those who resist.

    There's also the matter of UN resolution 1267. The date is 1999. Those are terrorist sanctions.

    And let's not rule out their actions while occupied by Russia -- even if they weren't the group known as the Taliban yet, it was the same human beings. And just because they were going after Russia didn't make it any better.

    Oh, and of course, the fact that we asked them to turn over Osama bin Laden and they refused. Which, if you'd actually been reading my posts, has been my point all along.

    I reject the implication that the Taliban can't be terrorists unless they attack the US or its people. That's deplorable. What the hell, man?

    I reject the implication that their actions before we invaded don't count, or just as bad, that you didn't know what they were.

    I reject the implication that I designated them terrorists because they, as an un-elected militant group that ruled by threats force and murder before we arrived, were taking back "their" country.

    And I reject the implication that, even if they hadn't been caught sheltering and aiding known terrorists groups before we arrived (which they were, the UN was resolutionly clear), that directly, specifically and publicly siding with and protecting Osama bin Laden after 9/11 wasn't enough to label them as terrorists all by itself. This wasn't "we agree with what he did" it was "we're siding with him with our very lives".

    Where the hell did this even come from? What's wrong with you, man?
    Yes seriously because if we use your standard then the US should be considered a terrorist nation to the likes we haven't seen since Nazi Germany.
    How many god dam people died because the US invaded Afghanistan and Irak? The Taliban for all of his faults did not attack the US and neither did Irak and both countries have been absolutely been reduces to shambles.

    If you want to get rid of groups like the Taliban and ISIS then you really should do the reverse of whatever you think the US government should be doing because doing the same thing and expecting different results (it's a good quote isn't it!) is the definition of instantly.

  16. #1736
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    Has the Taliban ever attacked US outside Afganistan? Guessing no honestly so you want to designate them as terrorist for taking back there country?
    It's not their country. They're a small minority who terrorize the rest of the afghan people. They are terrorists no matter how you try to twist it. You don't seem to have any historical knowledge about this subject whatsoever.

  17. #1737
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    It's not their country. They're a small minority who terrorize the rest of the afghan people. They are terrorists no matter how you try to twist it. You don't seem to have any historical knowledge about this subject whatsoever.
    By that logic a lot of countries governments are terrorist organizations. Which is way to wide of definition.


    ISIS is the Afghan's problem, not the US.
    Last edited by JohnBrown1917; 2021-09-16 at 01:09 PM.

  18. #1738
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrown1917 View Post
    By that logic a lot of countries governments are terrorist organizations. Which is way to wide of definition.
    I don't see any logic in that brainfart. Keep it to yourself next time please.

  19. #1739
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    I don't see any logic in that brainfart.
    You don't know any other country where the minority rules through heavy handed methods? Probably should take a few classes on world geography.

  20. #1740
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    The Taliban for all of his faults did not attack the US
    And the getaway driver didn't shoot anyone, but he knowningly worked with the people who did after the shooting, so guess what I feel about his involvement?

    And...why are you even suggesting I'm in favor of the Iraq invasion? I don't remember saying anything like that. HW's attack at least had the excuse that Iraq invaded an ally, but W's attack was a stupid petty revenge hit and should never have happened.

    And re-read what you just wrote. When did the Nazis attack the US?

    Yeah I'm done entertaining this "they didn't personally attack the USA so they're just misunderstood freedom fighters" argument. That's leaning heavily towards Trump talk about the murderous insurrection. Especially from someone who clearly hasn't actually read what I've posted on the subject. Fuck that logic, it's not worth further responses.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •