Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Endus]

The devil is in the details, details you aren't grasping. And it's the same for a lot of places where starvation is widely extant. Supplies and foodstuffs delivered to such countries never reach the people that need it the most because the local regimes, warlords...heck ganglords, horde it for obvious reasons. That's why I posted the link earlier. To ensure supplies go to everyone that needs them and more importantly develop the local powerstructure so that there are people in charge that give a shit, would demand a commitment that no one is interested in.

The simplest part; who are you delivering to?

If you're not running the country, you're not going door-to-door. And that means you're stuck handing it over to either A> the government (the Taliban, here), B> some charitable organization that has constant government oversight and no capacity to resist government seizures, or B> organized crime groups, which I shouldn't have to explain may not be fair about distribution.

[D3thray]

None of them excuse the Taliban. The USA has a long familiarity with hypocrisy, but keeping the money from the Taliban remains the right move. And no, I'm not excusing the rest of the US's history with terrorists. I don't need to, they're terrorists, they don't deserve excusing.

Good to see we have common ground, at least.

Semantics aside the official response from the administration is recognizing the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan whether explicitly stated or not. We don’t get a whole lot of say in the matter, we left. What you’re suggesting smacks of withholding welfare because you’re afraid the recipient won’t use it the way you want them to. We don’t get that say as already established. If there is a way to be found which can better distribute aid then sure we take that, but cutting off the tap is morally indefensible given recent history.

[Breccia]

Sending 90% of the country into acute famine is not the right choice.

Something the Taliban should have thought of before they took over and Trump before he put the Taliban in charge. Put the blame where it belongs.

Biden cannot give money to the Taliban. It's immoral, and illegal, to give money to terrorists. Biden is also organizing efforts to help the Afghan people directly. And yes, there's every reason to believe that's not going to go smoothly. But simply handing the Taliban a big sack of cash and saying "this was supposed to go to the government you replaced, ran off, and murdered, but here, do whatever you want" is something I'd be willing to bet would go less smoothly...and I bet you agree.

He could have directly funded terrorism in broad daylight. (Well no he couldn't but bear with me)

He could have sat on the money indefinitely.

He could have broken the US's deal and kept the occupation going -- something I'm sure we agree the Taliban would not have taken graciously.

Or, he coudl have done this.

Biden was left with only bad options. He's choosing the least bad.

We can discuss "are the Afghan people better off or worse off than they were Sept 10, 2001?" now that the Taliban were officially given status by Trump on the world stage all we want. We can theorize about the upcoming distribution of supplies. This thread is not the place to discuss what we should have done in the 1980's or 2001+ because Biden had little to nothing to do with either, but you can make another thread for that. But barring the virus from a Bond movie that kills every single Taliban covertly or a G.E.C.K. this is exactly what we all saw coming: Trump making a giant mess, dumping it on Biden's doorstep, then watching him get blamed for it. I will continue to give Biden respect for picking the best out of a list of the only choices he had left, rather than say "Biden should have invented time travel" to revert what happened in the last 20 years.

Be upset with the right people: the Taliban for being murdering terrorists, and Trump for handing them millions of defenseless civilians they could oppress. I don't see how Biden giving the Taliban cash would help. If you say "it belongs to the Afghan people" you'll see Biden agrees and is trying to help them directly.

- - - Updated - - -

B> some charitable organization that has constant government oversight and no capacity to resist government seizures

The Taliban claim they want to join the UN, or at least be recognized for it. Maybe that can be used here. If the UN handles distribution and the Taliban allow that, there's a chance this might not be a dismal failure. If the Taliban attack the UN, we're back to your three choices and add "D> give up, it's hopeless" gets added.

[beanman12345]

CMon Kamala and show some courage unlike the last vp, throw it back to the referee's and let them over rule the decision of the game and ta da the Bengals are super bowl champions. That's how this all works now right? Rigged players.

[Dontrike]

CMon Kamala and show some courage unlike the last vp, throw it back to the referee's and let them over rule the decision of the game and ta da the Bengals are super bowl champions. That's how this all works now right? Rigged players.

What is this?

[beanman12345]

What is this?

Bengal fans who are sore losers? It's a joke.

[AntiFascistVoter]

Bengal fans who are sore losers? It's a joke.

The Bengals can still be Super Bowl Champs, only if Mike Pence has the courage.

[Kaleredar]

Semantics aside the official response from the administration is recognizing the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan whether explicitly stated or not. We don’t get a whole lot of say in the matter, we left. What you’re suggesting smacks of withholding welfare because you’re afraid the recipient won’t use it the way you want them to. We don’t get that say as already established. If there is a way to be found which can better distribute aid then sure we take that, but cutting off the tap is morally indefensible given recent history.

So you're saying we should give the money blindly to a known terrorist group? Money we don't have to give to them? But that you're saying we should give to them, because they might maybe help people with it?

I mean, if we're drawing conclusions here, on that same notion isn't it also a bad idea to restrict giving out social services to education or welfare just because you're afraid that the money might be "used incorrectly?" The constant reason that conservatives refuse to fund or prop up social services for the poor and underserviced?

The main difference in this comparison, of course, being that statistics have shown that welfare fraud is vanishingly small... and the taliban are terrorists.

[Orange Joe]

no it isn't. that money belongs to the Afghan people (not the taliban). Afghanistan is starving because this money is their formal banking system. Why punish the Afghan people so harshly?

Sending 90% of the country into acute famine is not the right choice.

Just curious. Do you think if the US gave the money back to the people that taliban would just be like "Well GG you won, we won't just go take it back from the people"

[Breccia]

Semantics aside the official response from the administration is recognizing the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan whether explicitly stated or not. We don’t get a whole lot of say in the matter, we left. What you’re suggesting smacks of withholding welfare because you’re afraid the recipient won’t use it the way you want them to.

That is correct. That's why we give out food stamps and Medicare, but don't go door to door with a large sack of cash.

The Taliban are terrorists. We're not giving them the money. Yes, you can both be terrorists, and the government, just like you can both be in the White House and also a criminal. Criminals should be prosecuted, and terrorists should not be aided.

No, cutting off the tap is not morally indefensible. Giving money to terrorists is indefensible, including "but they might help their people". We know they don't. They kill their people. And I assume "recent history" means "things Trump did" and boy oh boy, that's not a defense of literally anything.

[Nurasu]

So you're saying we should give the money blindly to a known terrorist group? Money we don't have to give to them? But that you're saying we should give to them, because they might maybe help people with it?

I think the main counterpoint to this is that they don't actually need to use any of it to help their citizens for it to begin to re-stabilize their banking system and help their citizens anyway.

[Kaleredar]

I think the main counterpoint to this is that they don't actually need to use any of it to help their citizens for it to begin to re-stabilize their banking system and help their citizens anyway.

…or they do what terrorists do and use it to…I dunno, kill people?

If the taliban wants to pretend they’re suddenly cool guys that can run a happy country where everything is smiles and sunshine maybe they should have thought about how they were going to do this kind of thing beforehand.

[Endus]

I think the main counterpoint to this is that they don't actually need to use any of it to help their citizens for it to begin to re-stabilize their banking system and help their citizens anyway.

Stabilizing that economy helps cement the Taliban's leadership and ensure it will continue to hold power. That doesn't help their citizens.

Sometimes, the "best" outcome in the long term is to let a situation like that collapse. Provide sanctuary for those who can escape. Otherwise, the only real solution is invasion, and that's already been tried and turned out to be an expensive failure that only empowered that enemy. Letting the nation crumble around them demonstrates the failures of the Taliban regime and could get their supporters to abandon them, particularly as their power weakens along with that economy.

[Breccia]

I think the main counterpoint to this is that they don't actually need to use any of it to help their citizens for it to begin to re-stabilize their banking system and help their citizens anyway.

The Taliban's finances have been a "public secret" for a while. They're getting some through a variety of crimes -- illegal mining, shakedowns, opium -- and are being handed some for, well, being a terrorist group. I posted on it, recently. It looks like $1-2 billion a year, and I don't think it's enough to run a country that size. Not very well, at least. But then again, it was their decision to take over. Don't buy a $400,000 house if you're making minimum wage. Or more realistically, even if I'm your boss and paying you minimum wage, it's not my fault if you buy a $400,000 house and then default. I might be a shitty boss, but I didn't force you to sign the mortgage.

Ideally...no, fuck it, "ideally" is not an option. But it would be interesting if the Taliban are just so shitty at running the country, that there's an uprising of their mistreated civilians and we legit have nothing to do with it. I don't think that's realistic, it didn't happen before 2001, but if the Taliban say "we're in charge, we run everything" and let everyone get sick or starve to death...at some point, even when there's a gun to your head, enough's enough. I dare to dream.

Problem is...if there's even a whiff of this, we'll start funding the rebels and down that fucking rabbit hole we go. Again. Third time in Afghanistan, at least.

Regardless, Biden has at least moved it from "the Taliban are in charge and their people are starving" to "the Taliban are in charge and their people are starving, so we're figuring out how to use their money to feed them". The execution won't be perfect, but compared to the other options (giving terrorists money which is still illegal, or doing nothing at all), it's the best option Biden had left.

- - - Updated - - -

Stabilizing that economy helps cement the Taliban's leadership and ensure it will continue to hold power. That doesn't help their citizens.

Letting the nation crumble around them demonstrates the failures of the Taliban regime and could get their supporters to abandon them, particularly as their power weakens along with that economy.

Yeah, mostly this. I don't think Afghanistan has any good options left anymore. I'm not even sure any are just okay. The Taliban will either run the country well and cement themselves as terrorist warlords; or they'll run the country so poorly it crashes; they'll beg for another country to help out and basically sign a co-lease for the country, and since they're terrorists we all know which countries that would be; or they'll start some shit with another country (doesn't even have to be US) and get back into another war. There's no reasonable option in which the Taliban have a Hallmark Christmas moment, realize the error of their ways, and start irrigating fields for food and opening schools for math and science.

If we really wanted Afghanistan to be a prosperous, successful, free country, we should have tried harder for the last 20 years to make it so. The term for that is "colonization". W didn't. Obama didn't. And it wouldn't have mattered if Trump even tried, considering how he failed at everything he did, but since he's the one who legitimized the Taliban this is pretty much his fat fucking fault. Starting Jan 20, 2021, Biden couldn't. That option was removed from him.

So it looks like we wait to see whether the Taliban run a successful or unsuccessful totalitarian terrorist regime, while dangling carrots on sticks at the borders and help what few refugees escape without being football macheted. Considering what the options are, I'll take "save a few" over "save nobody at all".

[Endus]

If we really wanted Afghanistan to be a prosperous, successful, free country, we should have tried harder for the last 20 years to make it so. The term for that is "colonization". W didn't. Obama didn't. And it wouldn't have mattered if Trump even tried, considering how he failed at everything he did, but since he's the one who legitimized the Taliban this is pretty much his fat fucking fault. Starting Jan 20, 2021, Biden couldn't. That option was removed from him.

The central bipartisan issue is that Afghanistan wasn't run as a war to nation-build, or to eliminate the Taliban. It was run to maximize profits for Western (largely American) interests. Everything else was half-assed, because it wasn't the central goal, it was dressing used as a cover story because the real story, as in basically every war for 40 years, was "capitalists make money off human suffering of foreigners".

[jonnysensible]

Stabilizing that economy helps cement the Taliban's leadership and ensure it will continue to hold power. That doesn't help their citizens.

Sometimes, the "best" outcome in the long term is to let a situation like that collapse. Provide sanctuary for those who can escape. Otherwise, the only real solution is invasion, and that's already been tried and turned out to be an expensive failure that only empowered that enemy. Letting the nation crumble around them demonstrates the failures of the Taliban regime and could get their supporters to abandon them, particularly as their power weakens along with that economy.

not quite sure how you've twisted the logic to having only 2 absolute positions in which one is letting people starve to death is helping them.

sound like pc2 here talking to a starving person : 'well if you look at the data trends are positive in the future'

rancid apathy. Given yourself a nice get out with 'Provide sanctuary for those who can escape' which only condemns the other 99% who don't. Coward.

[Shadowferal]

not quite sure how you've twisted the logic to having only 2 absolute positions in which one is letting people starve to death is helping them.

How would you give them money, supplies and foodstuffs without the Taliban taking it away from them?

[Nurasu]

I'm having visions of Cuba where we starved them into rebelling against their government starving.

[Kaleredar]

not quite sure how you've twisted the logic to having only 2 absolute positions in which one is letting people starve to death is helping them.

sound like pc2 here talking to a starving person : 'well if you look at the data trends are positive in the future'

rancid apathy. Given yourself a nice get out with 'Provide sanctuary for those who can escape' which only condemns the other 99% who don't. Coward.

And your position is to just wholesale give money to terrorists. With the vague hope that they don’t use said money to just brutalize their people or extradite their violence elsewhere.


“I mean if we gave the nazis money surely some of it would have gone to help the Jews, right?”

[Endus]

not quite sure how you've twisted the logic to having only 2 absolute positions in which one is letting people starve to death is helping them.

sound like pc2 here talking to a starving person : 'well if you look at the data trends are positive in the future'

rancid apathy. Given yourself a nice get out with 'Provide sanctuary for those who can escape' which only condemns the other 99% who don't. Coward.

What's your alternative?

There's no way to get funding/supplies direct to the people. For that, you'd need political and military control of the region, and enough materiel and infrastructure on the ground throughout the nation to control distribution throughout.

To get it to them indirectly, you're either handing it over to the current leadership (the Taliban) who will do whatever the fuck they want with it, or you're working with underground resistance groups which is A> spotty, B> risks being uncovered by the Taliban, particularly with the amount of resources we're talking, and C> are potentially no better and possibly even much worse than the Taliban.

Direct distribution stopped being an option because it was tried, and the invasion/occupation was an enormous cost sink that really didn't fix much of anything long-term, at all, despite the massive amounts of money put into it.

Indirect distribution isn't really feasible, either, since the Taliban has no real reason to play ball and there aren't any other groups with the capacity to do so.

This isn't "2 absolute positions", it's an acknowledgement of the stark realities at play across a wide range of options. While also excluding "absolute positions" like "turn Afghanistan into glassy hills via thermonuclear devastation" or "do nothing, fuck 'em, they're not even white folks", because those positions are shit-tastic, obviously.

There isn't always a "good" solution. That's why I put quotes around words like that. The "best" long-term "fix" for the Taliban problem may be a whole hell of a lot of short-term suffering and chaos, because there are no other workable options. Invading again is chasing after a failed dream and will just kill a lot more Afghanis a lot faster than the Taliban already are, which is supposedly why you're condemning the Taliban, right?

If you're hands-off because there's no real plan to go hands-on that isn't strictly worse than the status quo, then you don't carry any moral or ethical blame for whatever might happen as a result. Police don't immediately invade a hostage situation because that usually just gets the hostages shot; they have to wait and try and negotiate over time, even if some hostages are killed, because "some hostages died" is "better" than "all hostages died". And the police aren't responsible for those deaths; the hostage-takers are.

Like Kalredar said; we've tried appeasement and shit in the past. It does not work. It's effectively a form of complicity with the enemy you're trying to appease, nothing more.