this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
428 points (100.0% liked)
memes
22774 readers
475 users here now
dank memes
Rules:
-
All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.
-
No unedited webcomics.
-
Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in /c/slop
-
Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.
-
Follow the code of conduct.
-
Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.
-
Recent reposts might be removed.
-
No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, but if you want to assign the end to someone, there is only one.
There's plenty of blame to go around; no need to hang it all on one person. If you like Biden, the better argument is that he was correct to leave.
Biden had no choice. Check that...he could have added more troops, set up an armed enclave, told the taliban that Trump didn't really sign that surrender and hope for the best.
Biden is the president; of course he had a choice. Fortunately, he made the right one.
He made the only one he could make.
Honestly not sure -- were you being sarcastic here? Why couldn't he have done something like this?
There's also the ever-possible "find some technical violation the other side did and back out," or "find some issue that's larger than imagined and unilaterally delay the agreement," etc. Who was going to hold him accountable?
Biden wanted to end the war as well but in a controlled fashion which the agreement precluded. The agreement itself was registered with the UN and there was no way to cancel it.
Was the UN going to force the U.S. out of Afghanistan if Biden re-wrote the agreement to his liking? The repercussions would have been a few countries making strong statements, if that.
Also a fracture in the world order with other agreements in doubt, US not considered an honest broker, ect.
There are centuries of evidence that the U.S. is not an honest broker (look at our treaty history with Native Americans). This would have made no difference.
While it is true that you can search back in our internal history to find examples of bad deals, it is also true on the international stage the US has a long history of peace, trade, treaty, ect. Deals that have stood the test of time. Of course there are exceptions, like Trump pulling out of the Iran agreement. Which resulted in putting us and the world in an uncertain place. But, by and large, a security agreement for instance, with the US is something other countries want.
We've been at war for something like 250 of our years of existence. We invaded all our continental neighbors, most of Latin America, plus Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, etc. in living memory.
The trade deals we sign are often at gunpoint (see "gunboat diplomacy," the opening of Japan, our history of coup attempts against countries that don't run their economies on our terms, constant sanctions, etc.).
You seem to be disappointed that your assumptions are wrong. BTW, the Korean War was with the UN which the US is part of. Vietnam, peace treaty signed Iraq, another agreement. Afghanistan, trump signed that one. Last time I was in Grenada everything was cool. Panama was a US protectorate when we invaded. US citizens there.
Vietnam doesn't need to sign a trade deal next month. China doesn't want them to do it. But they'll sign with Biden.
Why? We are the largest market on earth.
There are no assumptions here. We did, in fact, invade those countries. You are giving America's stated justifications, which do not mean the invasions didn't happen.
Not justifications, results. If you want justifications I'd have to go through each one. In fact, I'm not sure you read it Panama at the time was not it's own country. I'm not sure Grenada is either.
Maybe you should like, shut the fuck up and read a book or something
Hey rudeboy, practice what you preach
What book would you suggest?
Ulysses- James Joyce
So, nothing to do with the actual topics being discussed, just a book that sounds like something a cool and worldly nerd would read?
This is not surprising, but it certainly is disappointing.
You just said book and I was stupid enough to give you one. I like. Now you want a specific type of book. Try See It Shoot It by Chris Fuller.
Silly me expecting you to have a relevant, on-topic book suggestion in this relevant and on-topic thread where your response to being told to read a book was "nuh uh YOU".
Congrats on coming up with something on the second try though. I might actually read that one, I have no interest in reading Joyce's horseshit ever again.
I appreciate snark when it has wit. But, you have none.
I don't hold you in high enough regard to muster any snark for you, that was just my honest opinion.
You are using vulgarity to hide your ignorance and it's not working,
"I'm not owned, you're owned!" I say as I slowly turn into a pickle
technically the "Ukraine War" is called a Special Military Operation by the Russian invaders, which makes it more justifiable
Remember when Gaddafi got rid of his nukes in an act of goodwill towards the West, and then later the US didn't give a fuck and NATO destroyed Libya, bringing open air slave markets to the country? I'm guessing you don't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war_(2011)#:~:text=It%20erupted%20with%20the%20Libyan,who%20fired%20on%20the%20crowd.
The U.S. hasn’t been at peace for a single day since WW2 lol