President Biden's first term in office

[Lord Thesaurian]

Gonna level with you, I stopped reading right about here. All of your responses have been some variation of this same exact bit.

If you’re here to discuss in good faith, the above certainly doesn’t help your case. If you don’t want my responses to kick off the same way each time, maybe you should consider replying with something other than political talking points that directly contradict the cited facts, or not at all.

[Vanoi]

Weird strawman. No one claimed Iraq is directly at war with Iran. Iranian proxies are and have been active in Iraq, including recently. As for your second assertion, it’s less a question of if the current Iraqi government would collapse in the event the US suddenly pulled out a la Afghanistan, but whether or not the US should intervene or re-intervene to avert it.

Strawman? You directly said Iraq was in free fall and would have trouble fighting off ISIL and Iran. You did claim they were fighting the Iranians.

Wait, so post-2011 operations in Iraq aren’t counterterrorism, or the NATO operation in Afghanistan post-2014 wasn’t a war? Not that it has anything to do with what I said, either way. It appears you’ve lost the plot of your semantic “gotchas” again.

Nice deflection but I never said that. You did claim that the Afghanistan War were no different than counter-terrorism operations and as pointed out invasions are not counter-terrorism operations.

As I told you the last time you retreated to this “yeah, but…” quip, the public was against withdrawal according to some polls, so long as it was Trump’s idea. From 2019:

Thanks for posting that. It's not gonna change one bit your own source once indicated that only a minority favor staying in Afghanistan. Whenever they want a rapid withdraw or a slower one is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the American public no longer wishes to be in Afghanistan.

Americans seem to care less about getting out of Afghanistan, and more about whose idea it is. In any case, it hasn’t dampened support for USM presence in the Middle East, nor the increasing support for maintaining bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes your source showing only 48% of Americans wishing to remain in Afghanistan speaks volumes.

I suppose it’s predictable that you pivot again to lazy deflections when you have no argument. As for the first:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the second, the current Afghanistan withdrawal has nothing to do with the Cold War, and opposition to it doesn’t necessarily relate to a “Cold War mentality” just because you can’t defend your assertions with anything more than “muh neocons.”

You earlier tried to justify staying in Afghanistan to help combat China. Thats Cold War mentality. I've defended my points just fine. Your debating is terrible along with your poor poor argument to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Strawman? You directly said Iraq was in free fall and would have trouble fighting off ISIL and Iran.

Yes, and you claimed this is “not based on one single fact” despite multiple sources providing multiple facts.

You did claim they were fighting the Iranians.

Still leaning on the semantic gotchas, I see. It’s clear based on both my posts and the sources included that I was referring to Iranian proxies/militias and malign influence, which I also specified. It’s not my fault you’re clinging to a strawman to deflect from your lack of an argument.

Nice deflection but I never said that. You did claim that the Afghanistan War were no different than counter-terrorism operations and as pointed out invasions are not counter-terrorism operations.

It’s not a deflection. This is your rhetorical tangent, which I addressed on your terms. The invasion of Afghanistan took place years ago, and distinguishing this from the NATO counter terrorism mission to support the Afghan government since 2014 helps my case that compares it to other, current USM operations in the region, not your case that evidently attempts to argue said mission is not counterterrorism.

Thanks for posting that. It's not gonna change one bit your own source once indicated that only a minority favor staying in Afghanistan. Whenever they want a rapid withdraw or a slower one is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the American public no longer wishes to be in Afghanistan.

Yes your source showing only 48% of Americans wishing to remain in Afghanistan speaks volumes.

I’ve established that public opinion on withdrawal from Afghanistan is highly variable, while the majority support for sustained or increase USM presence in the region, as well as broad (48%) support for a permanent one in Afghanistan specifically, is consistent and increasing. The speed of the withdrawal absolutely matters, given the total disaster unfolding is a direct result of the USM’s rapid retreat amid calls to maintain at least enough troops there to accomplish short term objectives. What speaks volumes is that roughly half of people support the idea of a permanent base even while a larger majority of people believe the war wasn’t worth fighting. The overlap alone exposes the false dilemma presented by the Biden Admin, let alone the host of other factors I’ve discussed.

You earlier tried to justify staying in Afghanistan to help combat China. Thats Cold War mentality. I've defended my points just fine. Your debating is terrible along with your poor poor argument to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

I provided a number of sources highlighting certain facts, including, among other things, the strategic competition with China, which is a clear and present reality, not a bygone, Cold War fantasy. All you’ve accomplished here is to highlight your own inability or unwillingness to defend your claims or address your interlocutors - complete with the catchphrase projecting the vacuousness of your assertions.

[Vanoi]

Yes, and you claimed this is “not based on one single fact” despite multiple sources providing multiple facts.

Ok here's your quote:

What little substance these assertions have is incorrect, and I’m not sure what the point of these rhetorical goalposts are. Again, there are tens of thousands of US troops in the Middle East, indefinitely. As far as I know, there are the same number of troops in Iraq as there were in Afghanistan (2-3000), and they still come under attack from insurgents regularly. Iraq is in economic freefall and probably wouldn’t be able to fight off both ISIL and Iran et al for long if the US just packed up overnight and abandoned the government we are propping up years after toppling the previous

As you can see you did in fact claim Iraq was fighting Iran. You can deny it, but lucky enough I got your post right above to prove it.

If you don't like me pointing out ridiculous claims then don't make them. That's not semantics. That's the basics of debating.

It’s not a deflection. This is your rhetorical tangent, which I addressed on your terms. The invasion of Afghanistan took place years ago, and distinguishing this from the NATO counter terrorism mission to support the Afghan government since 2014 helps my case that compares it to other, current USM operations in the region, not your case that evidently attempts to argue said mission is not counterterrorism.

It taking place years ago is irrelevant. The fact is that Afghanistan was an invasion that toppled a government that changed into nation building. That by definition is not a counter-terrorism operation. In fact the Taliban the US fights are not even listed as an FTO by the US.

Real counter-terrorism operations don't involve nation building nor invading and toppling governments.

I’ve established that public opinion on withdrawal from Afghanistan is highly variable, while the majority support for sustained or increase USM presence in the region, as well as broad (48%) support for a permanent one in Afghanistan specifically, is consistent and increasing. The speed of the withdrawal absolutely matters, given the total disaster unfolding is a direct result of the USM’s rapid retreat amid calls to maintain at least enough troops there to accomplish short term objectives. What speaks volumes is that roughly half of people support the idea of a permanent base even while a larger majority of people believe the war wasn’t worth fighting. The overlap alone exposes the false dilemma presented by the Biden Admin, let alone the host of other factors I’ve discussed.

You have no proof it's increasing. There's no recent polls or surveys conducted dealing with the Afghan War. Your own source is from over a year ago.

You can say broad support all you want but 48% is still less than a majority. A poll at best conducted a year ago. If that's the best you got it's no wonder the US is withdrawing. Minority support is never enough to continue the war.

I provided a number of sources highlighting certain facts, including, among other things, the strategic competition with China, which is a clear and present reality, not a bygone, Cold War fantasy. All you’ve accomplished here is to highlight your own inability or unwillingness to defend your claims or address your interlocutors - complete with the catchphrase projecting the vacuousness of your assertions.

The Cold War is gone but the mentality from it stays. You admit it yourself by mentioning the strategic competition between the two. US involvement in Afghanistan was to go after Al-Qaeda and nothing more. Anything else is mission creep.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Ok here's your quote:

As you can see you did in fact claim Iraq was fighting Iran. You can deny it, but lucky enough I got your post right above to prove it.

If you don't like me pointing out ridiculous claims then don't make them. That's not semantics. That's the basics of debating.

What my quote proves is that you’re doubling down on your strawman, and desperately so. First, fighting off “Iran et al” is mentioned in a future tense, and my most recent link specifically discusses how the government’s arrest of the leader of an Iranian proxy group has “enraged” said groups overall and tests the will/ability of the government to “rein them in.” Thus it is unlikely said government “would be able to fight off both ISIL and Iran et al (literally referring to Iranian proxies and influence) for long if the US just packed up overnight and left.” This is not even necessarily a question of my personal viewpoint or an attempt to defend it. It’s a basic fact. From the source I provided:

A host of crucial multilateral interests are baked into the U.S. presence, from keeping the Islamic State down, to protecting vulnerable regional allies, to preventing Iran from taking Iraq's oil revenues.

Iraq suffers greatly from Iran’s interference, but the U.S.-Iraq relationship is demonstrably not a lost cause.

If U.S. troops stay in Iraq, they would greatly reinforce America’s position there and help counter Iran’s malign influence throughout the region. But if they leave, Iraq would be at immediate risk of slipping back into the destructive isolation of the Saddam era, with even less ability to resist Iran’s predatory policies. Most Iraqis rightly dread that thought. The hundreds of thousands of anti-Iranian protestors who have taken to Iraq’s streets in recent months, especially in Shia areas, drive home this point.

Beyond its geostrategic and political value, Iraq is now one of the world’s top oil exporters, with huge reserves for the long term. If the U.S. presence remains intact, the American, Iraqi, and global economy would share in those benefits. If the United States leaves, however, Iran would effectively gain increasing control of vast energy and financial resources, diverting them from Iraqi development in order to evade sanctions and greatly assist its own hegemonic ambitions.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...eed-each-other

Here’s another perspective from a source arguing the US should leave Iraq regardless:

Iraq’s civilian government is at its most fragile point since 2003. Newly seated Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi faces a daunting array of threats, even by the standards of Baghdad’s violent politics. Factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of Shiite militias who have fought alongside Iraqi armed forces, are brazenly attacking and intimidating Kadhimi and his government.

Meanwhile, Shiite militias openly hostile to Kadhimi’s government have taken over key government buildings in the heart of Baghdad. The fact that these militias are ostensibly part of the Iraqi armed forces makes the situation look like a slow-moving coup, with Kadhimi’s government facing the prospect of an overthrow. Violence in the streets of Baghdad and other cities only add to the sense of crisis, made all the worse by the global pandemic and Iraq’s dwindling financial resources due to falling oil prices.

More U.S. forces would likely return to Iraq if the current contingent were used to preserve the government in the face of militia threats, undoubtedly setting off a series of bloody confrontations that would resemble the U.S. occupation days. If Kadhimi’s government is allowed to fall, Iraq will likely see the kind of chaos that has gripped Libya in recent years, with multiple armed factions fighting one another amid interregnum for some period of time. The endgame for that scenario is unclear but would probably involve Iran orchestrating a coalition of militia forces who could establish some measure of control over Baghdad and southern Iraq.

Iran and its militia proxies have effectively hollowed out the Iraqi state by becoming the key battlefield force in the existential struggle against the Islamic State. The Iraqi government’s incompetence in dealing with the Islamic State threat was on full display when it lost huge swaths of territory, areas won back largely due to ground fighting done by the Popular Mobilization Forces with overt Iranian support.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/20...-intervention/

It taking place years ago is irrelevant. The fact is that Afghanistan was an invasion that toppled a government that changed into nation building. That by definition is not a counter-terrorism operation. In fact the Taliban the US fights are not even listed as an FTO by the US.

Real counter-terrorism operations don't involve nation building nor invading and toppling governments.

It absolutely is relevant that the invasion took place years ago, because the NATO mission to support the Afghan government against terrorist insurgents post-2014 is not an invasion. It’s even described as a “non-combat mission” on the NATO page below. If you want to argue that the Taliban insurgents blowing themselves up to attack civilian targets amid a jihad against the government aren’t terrorists and therefore said mission is not counterterrorism, feel free to die on that hill. It has little to do with the fact the NATO mission in Afghanistan was directly comparable to other initiatives the US has deployed tens of thousands of troops in the region to accomplish, regardless of the hilarious contortions you’re going through to insist it isn’t for the sake of argument.

You have no proof it's increasing. There's no recent polls or surveys conducted dealing with the Afghan War. Your own source is from over a year ago.

You can say broad support all you want but 48% is still less than a majority. A poll at best conducted a year ago. If that's the best you got it's no wonder the US is withdrawing. Minority support is never enough to continue the war.

I do have proof it’s increasing, and I provided it. The title of the report from February 2020 (published shortly before the Afghanistan withdrawal timetable was finalized): “American Public Support for US Troops in Middle East Has Grown.” And it provided specific examples:

Key Findings:

A majority of Americans say the US military presence in the Middle East should be maintained (45%) or increased (29%). Just 24 percent think it should be decreased.

A majority support long-term military bases in Iraq (55%, up from 41% in 2014) and Kuwait (57%, up from 47% in 2014). Nearly half favor keeping bases in Afghanistan (48%, up from 43% in 2014).

If you disagree, you would need to provide evidence this trend has reversed. Until then, I’m right, and that’s that.

The Cold War is gone but the mentality from it stays. You admit it yourself by mentioning the strategic competition between the two. US involvement in Afghanistan was to go after Al-Qaeda and nothing more. Anything else is mission creep.

The fact that the US is in strategic competition with China and Afghanistan policy directly impacts that =/= “a Cold War mentality” just because you can only justify your assertions with falsehoods and obfuscations. As for the latest USM mission there, your assertion is false:

The NATO-led mission Resolute Support Mission (RSM) in Afghanistan was launched on 1 January 2015, following the completion of the mission of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Its aim was to provide further training, advice and assistance for the Afghan security forces and institutions. In April 2021, the Allies decided to start the withdrawal of RSM forces by 1 May 2021.

Resolute Support was a NATO-led, non-combat mission. The mission was established at the invitation of the Afghan government and in accordance with United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 2189 of 2014. Its purpose was to help the Afghan security forces and institutions develop the capacity to defend Afghanistan and protect its citizens in a sustainable manner. As of August 2020, RSM had around 10,000 personnel from 36 NATO member states and partner countries deployed in Afghanistan. These forces are being reduced to zero as the drawdown decided in April 2021 continues.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_113694.htm

[B. W.]

Here's some thing that leftists don't know about conservatives. The reason for this is obvious; their sources of information have proven too many times that they can tell them what to think, how to think, and when to think it. Conservatives, however, are capable of critical thinking and I can't find anything that describes where their thinking is at better than this:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ervatives.html

[Ludicus]

A huge mistake...

The art of Hunter Biden's latest deal | TheHill

...And that’s precisely why this Hunter Biden art arrangement stinks. There is little value in his art other than Joe Biden’s name. For that very reason, given all the ethical hollowness of the last administration, the White House should toss the ten-foot pole arrangement and wash its hands of the whole mess.

White House defends role in Hunter Biden art sale - BBC News

The White House has defended its role in helping to broker a deal that will shroud art deals by President Joe Biden's son in secrecy.
Paintings by Hunter Biden are expected to fetch up to $500,000 (£360,000) apiece at auction this autumn.
Any buyers will be kept anonymous to stop them seeking political influence with the Bidens, the White House says.
But a former White House ethics chief said the arrangement was "very disappointing".

-----

Pretty much. As soon as the U.S. settled in to try and nation-build, the war was lost.

The idea of invading countries to "fix" them is nonsensical, absurd.They could have learned from Napoleon,

There cannot be a firmly established political state unless there is a teaching body with definitely recognized principles. If the child is not taught from infancy that he ought to be a republican or a monarchist, a Catholic or a free-thinker, the state will not constitute a nation; it will rest on uncertain and shifting foundations; and it will be constantly exposed to disorder and change.

Napoleon I, 1805.

[Heathen Hammer]

Here's some thing that leftists don't know about conservatives. The reason for this is obvious; their sources of information have proven too many times that they can tell them what to think, how to think, and when to think it. Conservatives, however, are capable of critical thinking and I can't find anything that describes where their thinking is at better than this:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ervatives.html

I think that it comes down to the factor of struggle. One doesn't need to do anything to be an establishment leftist, just consume mainstream media and agree with it.
To be a right-winger, on the other hand, one must have a certain thirst for knowledge and quick mind, and strong will to "go against the grain". Same goes for tankies and other types of non-establishment left.

[Coughdrop addict]

I think that it comes down to the factor of struggle. One doesn't need to do anything to be an establishment leftist, just consume mainstream media and agree with it.
To be a right-winger, on the other hand, one must have a certain thirst for knowledge and quick mind, and strong will to "go against the grain". Same goes for tankies and other types of non-establishment left.

Nonsense. Conformity is the very heart of conservatism. Just try and offer a contradictory opinion, like "Hey guys, Trump actually lost the election fairly." on any conservative site and see how fast you're thrown out.

Additionally core conservative beliefs such as the free press is the enemy of the people, when they lose it means someone cheated, doctors cannot be trusted, scientists know nothing, and college professors are some of the most dangerous people around mark them as deeply anti-intellectual.

[Heathen Hammer]

Indeed, it takes real courage to be a leftist, by daring to agree with governments, banks, academia and media conglomerates.

[irontaino]

Better any of those than a game show host who's also a conman and shows clear signs of being senile.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah, Trump was a disgrace, posting mean tweets instead of bombing a children's hospital like Obama did.

[irontaino]

Right, I'm sure the families of the 600,000+ Americans who died from a virus he decided to ignore and downplay see it that way. Also, wasn't one of his first acts as president to bomb the hell out of Syria and drop a MOAB in Afghanistan? Not to mention increasing troops in the Middle East.

[Coughdrop addict]

Indeed, it takes real courage to be a leftist, by daring to agree with governments, banks, academia and media conglomerates.

Reflexive contrarianism doesn't require much self-reflection either. One thing I've noticed that is unfailingly consistent, through all the different types of conservatives, is how dependent they are on the things they're always deriding. They don't seem to have any issue driving on public roads, or being on welfare, or getting paid with money their government printed instead of through a barter system. They somehow take out loans from, and store their money in, the banks they claim to hate. They hate learning and education, yet will immediately reach for any university study and appeal to academic authority if they think it will help them win an argument. And they certainly show a significant degree of loyalty to their own media conglomerates, believing without question what Hannity or Carlson says.

[Cope]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Participants may not criticize.

[Coughdrop addict]

When the criticisms boil down to "I should be allowed to take or do whatever I want regardless of who gets hurt." then they aren't really worth listening too.

Modern conservatism doesn't really have any ideas to improve society. "Tax cuts for the rich." isn't an idea, it's a gift.

[Cope]

When the criticism invariably boils down to “everyone I disagree with is a sociopathic brute”, then it isn’t really worth listening to.

[Heathen Hammer]

Reflexive contrarianism doesn't require much self-reflection either. One thing I've noticed that is unfailingly consistent, through all the different types of conservatives, is how dependent they are on the things they're always deriding. They don't seem to have any issue driving on public roads, or being on welfare, or getting paid with money their government printed instead of through a barter system. They somehow take out loans from, and store their money in, the banks they claim to hate. They hate learning and education, yet will immediately reach for any university study and appeal to academic authority if they think it will help them win an argument. And they certainly show a significant degree of loyalty to their own media conglomerates, believing without question what Hannity or Carlson says.

Yeah, those greedy workers need to stop being so selfish and start thinking about how corporate CEOs can't make as much money if labor isn't cheap.

[B. W.]

Now it's finally coming out that Bill Barr told a big fat lie when he said the FBI had no evidence of election fraud:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...bill_barr.html

[Heathen Hammer]

Now it's finally coming out that Bill Barr told a big fat lie when he said the FBI had no evidence of election fraud:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...bill_barr.html

American people were making the wrong choice by supporting man who posts mean tweets instead of bombing hospitals like scandal-free American presidents usually do, so they had no other choice but to Fortify the election for the Greater Good.