Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Options
1269270272274275696

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,239 ✭✭✭Jimbob1977


    Yep. After the debacle of Mogadishu, Clinton and Albright were unwilling to commit troops to Rwanda.

    They started debating the dictionary definition of 'genocide'.... while 800,000 people were murdered in 90 days.

    The Interhamwe were a total rabble. An organised UN force would have defeated them. In the end, the RPF were required to oust them.



  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    I don’t remember a time in the last 40 years we have heard so little in the media on this side of the pond about a President of the United States of America



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It's been a largely uneventful year for him. Vaccine rollout is going fine with the exception of the anti-vaccine movement. The Afghanistan is pullout is rightfully getting plenty of news coverage cause it's looking like a misstep by the administration. What scandal do you think they're failing to cover?



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,856 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Probably a reaction to trump being covered so extensively and it’s more of a “traditional” American presidency.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Because Trump got his ass thrown out. That's why troops weren't pulled out while he was in office.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    These sort of revelations will prove very damaging to Biden in time I would imagine.




  • Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Not one mention of the current President of the United States of America on tonight’s RTE news

    Very odd on such a day like today



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,705 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭francois


    Not everybody lives in such a simplistic binary world.



  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Funny, if Trump was ever mentioned on RTE you'd be crying about it too.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I just checked the news for this evening. The first story is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan which is covered in detail including the statement from the Secretary of State in the US and global comments. Also frontpage news on RTE site. Imagine it will be covered in further detail in the days to come. I'm lost on what's wrong with RTE's coverage on it? I'm pretty sure everyone is aware on who the president of the US is.


    https://www.rte.ie/news/



  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ah trump supporters do and also those on this side of the Atlantic.

    But in their defence they do seem to have the habit of falling for con artists and scrotes a hell of a lot for some reason. Like their belief that the anti Irish con artist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, would be elected and that every time he is assault or sued for libel that he will win the resulting cases.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,412 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    For my part I think my own post history would show the only thing I did was mock Trump for setting a timeline to withdraw, after making such a big show of not giving anything away during his election campaign.


    Staying in Afghanistan permanently has never been an option, "Maybe 100 years" is why I ultimately ruled out ever voting for John McCain.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,357 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    So, keeping 2500 troops in the country would have halted any Taliban advance?

    Looking at it unfolding, there must have been some back channel feelers from the talks that this was the way it would play out. Doubt if the US is taken by surprise by it. On a cold calculated basis, Biden may have decided to do it during his first year in office.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Any hope of a real change in Afghanistan died when Bush and Co. decided to invade Iraq for its oil and left a mickey mouse team to combat the Taliban and other groups.

    The time to shit or get off the pot has long since past.

    As for Trump, he's fully behind a US withdrawal, which is why when someone says it wouldn't have happened under him it just makes them look like they haven't the first clue what they're talking about. As a matter of fact, Trump wanted to remove American troops last May in an agreement he made with teh Taliban.

    "Getting out of Afghanistan is a wonderful and positive thing to do, I planned to withdraw on May 1st, and we should keep as close to that schedule as possible." 18th April.

    The bottom line is that the Afghans don't want foreign occupiers to call the shots in their country. That's why they're rolling over again for the Taliban.



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Don't forget the whooping and hollering they did for Peter Casey when he got his arse handed to him in the Presidential election...and every subsequent election he went for afterwards.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,412 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ...



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,608 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Bad optics for Biden definitely, as this is happening on his watch, but not sure how it would have been any different any other time.

    Perhaps if they'd withdrawn earlier the Taliban wouldn't have had the capacity they do now to wave them off from their airports and render any effort at a 'Mission accomplished' style departure impossible.

    But seeing as how the ANA simply dissolved instantly, I'm not sure whether an earlier or later withdrawal would have made any difference.

    After 20 years and all those billions spent, a few weeks or months or even years earlier or later wasn't going to make any real difference.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,630 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Maybe I am wrong didn’t America say to taliban after sept 11 to hand over al qaeda leaders or we will invade ? If the taliban had of done this maybe they would never had lost power in the first place. Doubt America wanted to get involved In Afghan. The Russians didn’t enjoy themselves their either in the 80s



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden to a neutral country and wanted the US to provide proof that he was behind the 9/11 attacks. Bush said no. Whether they wanted to get involved or not, is another story. What we do know is that once they were in Afghanistan, using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq became a much bigger priority.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,615 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    I think the optics of getting out and ending it will stick, previous administrations all failed to do this, Biden has succeeded, the US voters won't be thinking about what is happening in Afghanistan it at the next polling booth (especially as the other party tried and failed to leave so it will just seem like they're being sore losers).

    Whether that's right or wrong is another argument, I'd hedge that the surrounding countries (e.g. Pakistan/Iran) now more than ever need to decide how to treat the new entity that is emerging there.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    The Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to Pakistan specifically for trial under Sharia law. Pakistan refused to take him into custody anyhow making the whole offer meaningless. You're being somewhat economical with the truth. They were not willing to hand him over to any random neutral country. They also weren't willing to impose a crackdown on Al-Qaeda operations in Afghanistan.



  • Registered Users Posts: 460 ✭✭HerrKapitan


    Biden made a courageous decision to not hand over this futile war to a 5th president. He should be commended for that. And for knowing who the Taliban were is a positive step for the American president.

    I would worry though, about his advisors, given he said that a quick Taliban take over was "highly unlikely".



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,856 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    He may in time be proven correct in getting out but from listening to the Sunday shows from America, it’s not much solace to him in the immediate to short term. I mean for Christ sake even trump on Fox News years ago(it was posted in some thread today) called what would happen spot on, which I never expected to say about trump. It seems American politicians and commentators aren’t surprised the Taliban have taken over in Afghanistan once the Americans left, it’s the speed at which that has happened has caught many off guard.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    It was 20 years ago, so forgive me if I can't recall exactly what country or countries the Taliban had in mind. The point, however, is that there was an option on the table other than "getting involved" as the original questioner put it. Not the greatest of offers of course, but there it is.

    In fairness, once America had named Bin Laden as their man (remarkable in its swiftness, I must say) they probably had to be seen to be doing something. Now whether that was originally about invading Afghanistan or not is another story. However, all of what they did came to naught when Bush and his handlers started getting goggle eyed about Iraq within a year instead, thus killing any kind of momentum that may have been built up with regards to Bin Laden. Didn't Bush say that he didn't even care where Bin Laden was at one point.

    In the end the entire exercise has been one of complete worthlessness.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    A continued military presence would most certainly have provided a great degree of support for the ANA & Afghan Government. It would also have made the Taliban think twice about marching on Kabul and risking a military confrontation with US forces. Look at Kabul airport tonight - Taliban forces are steering clear of it. I imagine they will continue to do so for the next few days too. So yes, I do think it would have provided a degree of security for Kabul at the very least.

    Once the US announced a complete withdrawal it was game over. The Taliban clearly have become emboldened and they can’t be blamed for that either.

    I don’t necessarily agree with you that the US Government expected this. Looking at all the briefing taking place tonight, it seems US officials and Biden in particular were very much taken aback by the speed of the Taliban advance. Do you really think they would have risked a disorderly evacuation if they had intelligence to suggest otherwise? Do we not remember the political fallout that accompanied the Benghazi attack? Today has been a disaster for the US. If they could have avoided a disorderly evacuation then they would have. They’ve clearly been caught off guard.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    It's a basic plan that anyone could have came up with. You negotiate with the Taliban. You tell them, do what you want but stay away from Kabul for about a week and promise them a **** load of aid and some empty gestures.

    You send the US planes and drones to hover around the perimeter of the city, blowing the absolute **** out of any Taliban going inside a perimeter, and you evacuate everyone you need.

    They could have negotiated that this week when it looked inevitable.

    Who the hell couldn't come up with a plan so basic?



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,412 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Yes, I have full confidence it's so easy that someone on the internet could have come up with it where others failed to think "hey, we can just shoot them"

    You've done it. No hubris detected.




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 38,240 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    I don't for the life of me understand how you could liken Peter Casey to Trump.

    I'm not standing up fir Casey here either. He was, imo, just taking the p. He's not a bad guy.



Advertisement