Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

USA Politics/Election Thread: Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Democrats, Republicans, et al.


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, drummer4now said:

There is a reason they call Afghanistan the "graveyard of empires"... many have come and gone without success. 

I believe the Sikhs we're the only ones to conquer some parts of Afghanistan before the British/others failed. 

 

The terrain of the region is farce and only way to defeat them would to drop nukes or multiple MOABs which is just not feasible. 

It is feasible but just not advisable for fallout reasons ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, drummer4now said:

There is a reason they call Afghanistan the "graveyard of empires"... many have come and gone without success. 

I believe the Sikhs we're the only ones to conquer some parts of Afghanistan before the British/others failed. 

 

The terrain of the region is farce and only way to defeat them would to drop nukes or multiple MOABs which is just not feasible. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/27/10-myths-about-afghanistan

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

This thread is BORING without the orange baby.  

He sat ring side at UFC last night.

Was received with cheers and jeers. Boo's mixed with the USA chant. 

 

So, that country is about as friendly as Conor and Dustin were after Dustin dusted him once again.

 

Has he announced his 2024 run yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

He sat ring side at UFC last night.

Was received with cheers and jeers. Boo's mixed with the USA chant. 

 

So, that country is about as friendly as Conor and Dustin were after Dustin dusted him once again.

 

Has he announced his 2024 run yet?

Can he run for President from prison?  

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites


I’m starting to think the US does need a wall -  to keep them in. Sad when you see stuff like this happening to our friends to the south. To the Republicans credit they have greatly distanced themselves from this guy. From Snopes:

 

It’s true that Walker won a 8 May 2018 primary and will therefore be the Republican candidate in the 6 November 2018 general election, during which he’ll face Democratic incumbent Garland Pierce in a race to represent District 48 in the North Carolina state House of Representatives.

The North Carolina Republican Party, however, has not only pulled their financial support from Walker, but they have also barred him from the party’s events and property. Dallas Woodhouse, the state’s Republican party executive director, told us that District 48 is solidly Democrat, and the likelihood of Walker’s winning it is therefore low. “We will be likely passing a formal resolution that asks Republicans not to vote, or vote for someone else, which is extraordinary for our party to do,” Woodhouse told us.

The state Republican party also put out an official statement declaring that they “will be spending our time and resources supporting Republican candidates that better reflect the values of our party.”

Although it’s true Walker won the Republican primary with 65 percent of the vote, Woodhouse pointed out that voter turn-out in the primary was very low. District 48 has a total of 52,828 registered voters, according to state data, but Walker received only 824 votes.

 

 

 

6F1BF3AC-4BFE-40DD-BB32-266E5D499935.jpeg

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things about Afghanistan and the US.

 

First, as a couple of people here have pointed out - yes, let's admit the Afghans (including, or maybe especially, the Taliban) are tough.  That they've been able to survive both the Soviet Union and the US is amazing.

 

But about that survival against the US:  It's been mentioned before in this group how much money the US spends on its military.  More than - what? - the next six or seven countries combined?  And yet, after spending all that money, and after twenty years of fighting, this high-price military was unable to defeat a guerilla army in a small, under-developed country.  How is that possible?  Where did the money go?  What was it used for?  Why were the people at the top unable to devise and implement a successful military strategy?  I can see that maybe they were surprised in the first year or two, but they've had twenty years to come up with something.  And they've been unable to.

 

People can agree or disagree on spending huge amounts of money (to the detriment of other social programs) on the military.  But if the money is going to be spent, isn't it reasonable to expect results?

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

A couple of things about Afghanistan and the US.

 

First, as a couple of people here have pointed out - yes, let's admit the Afghans (including, or maybe especially, the Taliban) are tough.  That they've been able to survive both the Soviet Union and the US is amazing.

 

But about that survival against the US:  It's been mentioned before in this group how much money the US spends on its military.  More than - what? - the next six or seven countries combined?  And yet, after spending all that money, and after twenty years of fighting, this high-price military was unable to defeat a guerilla army in a small, under-developed country.  How is that possible?  Where did the money go?  What was it used for?  Why were the people at the top unable to devise and implement a successful military strategy?  I can see that maybe they were surprised in the first year or two, but they've had twenty years to come up with something.  And they've been unable to.

 

People can agree or disagree on spending huge amounts of money (to the detriment of other social programs) on the military.  But if the money is going to be spent, isn't it reasonable to expect results?

My guess is that the mandate for the American troops was to:

1. kick the Taliban off the throne

2. chase them out of the land (or at least into hiding)

3. bring about democratic elections and hold the fort until the local army is 'trained"

 

Unfortunately, the Taliban is probably well-embedded in the population with a fair amount of support (more than most western parties are willing to admit), so a Taliban resurgence after the Americans departed was to be expected.  The part that I can see being disappointing is that the local army, who is supposed to stand up for the local government, basically said "&^@# that" and scattered once the American troops left, without even bothering to take munitions and materials sold or transferred to them with them, essentially benefitting the incoming Taliban forces.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

A couple of things about Afghanistan and the US.

 

First, as a couple of people here have pointed out - yes, let's admit the Afghans (including, or maybe especially, the Taliban) are tough.  That they've been able to survive both the Soviet Union and the US is amazing.

 

But about that survival against the US:  It's been mentioned before in this group how much money the US spends on its military.  More than - what? - the next six or seven countries combined?  And yet, after spending all that money, and after twenty years of fighting, this high-price military was unable to defeat a guerilla army in a small, under-developed country.  How is that possible?  Where did the money go?  What was it used for?  Why were the people at the top unable to devise and implement a successful military strategy?  I can see that maybe they were surprised in the first year or two, but they've had twenty years to come up with something.  And they've been unable to.

 

People can agree or disagree on spending huge amounts of money (to the detriment of other social programs) on the military.  But if the money is going to be spent, isn't it reasonable to expect results?

Totally.

 

One a side note watched a movie called Jirga last night.

It is about a Aussie soldier who returns to Afghanistan to apologise to the family of a man he murdered in a "gunfight".

It gives insight into the motivations of some of the Taliban,the leader of the group that "captures" him for a period of the movie takes him to the semi destroyed home of his brother's family and tells him how they were all killed by a US drone strike.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

My guess is that the mandate for the American troops was to:

1. kick the Taliban off the throne

2. chase them out of the land (or at least into hiding)

3. bring about democratic elections and hold the fort until the local army is 'trained"

 

Unfortunately, the Taliban is probably well-embedded in the population with a fair amount of support (more than most western parties are willing to admit), so a Taliban resurgence after the Americans departed was to be expected.  The part that I can see being disappointing is that the local army, who is supposed to stand up for the local government, basically said "&^@# that" and scattered once the American troops left, without even bothering to take munitions and materials sold or transferred to them with them, essentially benefitting the incoming Taliban forces.

I think that's a pretty good guess.

 

But again, does it take 20 years to train an army?  Shouldn't alarm bells have been going off after - oh, I don't know - five to ten years of futile training?

 

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While the war in Afghanistan cost many thousands of people their lives, there was also a financial cost to the war.

 

Interesting article on that financial cost here:

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7826546/war-in-afghanistan-cost/

 

Quote

The U.S. has spent a stunning total of $2.26 trillion on a dizzying array of expenses, according to the Costs of War project.

 

The Defense Department’s latest 2020 report said war-fighting costs totaled $815.7 billion over the years. That covers the operating costs of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, everything from fuel and food to Humvees, weapons and ammunition, from tanks and armored vehicles to aircraft carriers and airstrikes.

 

Although America first invaded to retaliate against al-Qaida and rout its hosts, the Taliban, the U.S. and NATO soon pivoted to a more open-ended mission: nation-building on a massive scale.

 

Washington has poured over $143 billion into that goal since 2002, according to the latest figures from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

 

Of that, $88 billion went to training, equipping and funding Afghan military and police forces. Another $36 billion was spent on reconstruction projects, education and infrastructure like dams and highways, the SIGAR report said. Another $4.1 billion has gone to humanitarian aid for refugees and disasters. The campaign to deter Afghans from selling heroin around the world cost over $9 billion.

 

Unlike with other conflicts in American history, the U.S. borrowed heavily to fund the war in Afghanistan and has paid some $530 billion in interest. It has also paid $296 billion in medical and other care for veterans, according to Costs of War. It will continue to pay both those expenses for years to come.

 

FOLLOWING THE MONEY


Much of the billions lavished on huge infrastructure projects went to waste, the U.S. inspector general discovered. Canals, dams and highways fell into disrepair, as Afghanistan failed to absorb the flood of aid. Newly built hospitals and schools stood empty. Without proper oversight, the U.S. money bred corruption that undermined government legitimacy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UnkNuk said:

I think that's a pretty good guess.

 

But again, does it take 20 years to train an army?  Shouldn't alarm bells have been going off after - oh, I don't know - five to ten years of futile training?

 

 

Perhaps, but I suspect it took a while for the numbers to hit "critical mass" (maybe 5-10 years?), plus to a certain extent they were building a bit from the ground up, since the last army in the area was loyal to the Taliban.  It's also not the most stable environment to be training an army, given factional/tribal/linguistic differences, corruption, attrition (cold feet/desertion, ied'd), etc.

 

But I agree with your point that there should've been alarm bells going off.  In fact, there probably were (and were ignored or muted) - given the alternative (up and out) would've led to a pretty quick re-destabilization of the area, and there was no political interest in Washington in maintaining a constant presence, my guess is they tried to find the best route out that would offer the least (heh) opportunity for destabilization.

 

(I chuckled my dark humour chuckle because there is no way to exit that arena without destabilizing the area.  Not when you've had such an obvious presence in the area for so long.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

While the war in Afghanistan cost many thousands of people their lives, there was also a financial cost to the war.

 

Interesting article on that financial cost here:

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7826546/war-in-afghanistan-cost/

 

 

Imagine if that money went towards afghanistans infrastructure and schools, the people would have loved america so much the taliban wouldnt be a thing

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hamhuis Hip Check said:

Imagine if that money went towards afghanistans infrastructure and schools, the people would have loved america so much the taliban wouldnt be a thing

But that doesn't support the big war machine (defense contractors).

 

<_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hamhuis Hip Check said:

Imagine if that money went towards afghanistans infrastructure and schools, the people would have loved america so much the taliban wouldnt be a thing

 

They touched upon it in the article that @UnkNuk quoted.  Excerpts below.  When you're busy trying not to get killed, oversight over infrastructure projects and getting hospitals and schools utilized kind of falls into a lower priority - and that's when corruption takes over and things fall into disrepair and disuse.

 

10 hours ago, UnkNuk said:
Quote

Another $36 billion was spent on reconstruction projects, education and infrastructure like dams and highways, the SIGAR report said.

 

Quote

Much of the billions lavished on huge infrastructure projects went to waste, the U.S. inspector general discovered. Canals, dams and highways fell into disrepair, as Afghanistan failed to absorb the flood of aid. Newly built hospitals and schools stood empty. Without proper oversight, the U.S. money bred corruption that undermined government legitimacy.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

BOTH SIDES ARE BAD.  

 

About that.

 

 

A few things:

 

Regarding Trump's Cognitive test that he supposedly "aced" and was told by one of the doctors that they "had never seen that before".....Note the use of the word "Sir", when referring to what someone called him in the alleged conversation. Fact checker Daniel Dale has done a deep dive on this and he discovered that when Trump uses the word "Sir" in that context, he is invariably lying: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-lie-telltale-sign_n_5d1c6fcbe4b07f6ca58653ee

 

Windmills: On the surface, it seems odd. Why does Trump promote goofy conspiracy theories about windmills causing cancer? The answer, (as it almost always does with Trump) comes down to money.

 

In 2006, Trump purchased a plot of land in Scotland, intending to build "the greatest golf course anywhere in the world". Unfortunately for him, a wind farm was being built in the vicinity, which he felt would "destroy the view". Of course, he sued and of course, he lost.

 

He's been doing his Donald Quixote thing ever since.....:rolleyes:

 

FF Jr: Anyone else immediately think of Pot / Kettle when Little Donnie started taking about addiction and being a "piece of garbage"? I wonder how many lines the assclown did before heading out to the stage....

 

Finally, those random speakers: I wonder if these people are truly this moronic, or if the are just doing the Faux News thing and pretending to be morons in order to pander to Trump's base?

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • DonLever changed the title to USA Politics/Election Thread: Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Democrats, Republicans, et al.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...