As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[MENA] The Middle East and North Africa

KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
edited February 8 in Debate and/or Discourse
MENA.jpg

Wherein we discuss various events in the countries above, current and sometimes historical. Generally discussion tends to be is politics-related but other subjects are fine too. I'm not going to attempt a country-by-country summary like I did last time; there are several that I have not read enough about (either recently or in general) to do so adequately. Instead, I will note a pretty amazing thing that I noticed while skimming the last OP:
Afghanistan has been at war for over 40 years now, and peace seems nowhere on the horizon.

That was last May. Whoops! Four months later and the country is at peace! Didn't see that one coming. All is far from well in Afghanistan; the economic collapse after the government's overthrow has resulted in famine conditions for parts of the country. Despite this, the US continues to freeze the Afghan government's access to billions of dollars of its central bank's money, while enforcing economic sanctions that make international aid more difficult and worsen the economic crisis. But nonetheless, the country is at peace for the first time in 40 years. After 20 years of failure and pointless bloodshed, the US leaves and the fighting ends almost immediately! It's also a striking contrast to the situation post-Soviet withdrawal (chaotic many-sided warlord civil war).

In other news, the war in Yemen continues to rage on, and has even escalated with Yemeni missile attacks on the UAE (who are backing the most powerful anti-Houthi faction). The Saudi bombing has been especially unhinged in recent weeks, with countless people killed in indiscriminate destruction of residential areas. The US continues to arm the Saudis to the teeth, help them logistically, and has recently declared further support to the UAE in response to Yemen's missile attack. It's funny how these things are discussed in the US; missiles shot from Yemen toward one of the countries warring on it are discussed as dangerous escalations justifying swift and harsh response, while the constant destruction of Yemen as a whole by Saudi planes is just how things go.

After the most devastating war seen in the 21st century (edit - arguably second most devastating, I forgot that the Second Congo War lasted until 2003), Syria is a mess, but is not really at war now, or at least not a hot war. The rebel-held province of Idlib and the government occasionally skirmish, but it doesn't usually escalate beyond that. ISIS attempted a prison break in Kurdish territory recently, which was by far their largest attack since their territorial defeat a few years ago, but it mostly failed. The US still has a small number of troops there ("To safeguard the oil fields!" Really as a barrier against Iran, I'd say). Turkish troops occupy a strip territory in the north and are present in Idlib as well. The country's economy is an absolute disaster, though, and is worsened by - you guessed it! - crippling sanctions from the US. Blinken has stated that the US is "opposed to the reconstruction of Syria" (a really extreme and horrifying position if you take a second to think on it), so that's that, I guess. The Syrian economy's collapse is also worsening the situation in Lebanon, which has suffered an increasingly severe economic and political crisis for years now, which has finally escalated to the point where the state appears to be in a state of gradual but increasingly rapid collapse.

Iran had an election last year, and the faction we in the Anglosphere often refer to as "hardliners" won it. During the final months of the previous, more moderate administration, Rouhani repeatedly urged Biden to reenter the nuclear agreement with Iran, which previous president Trump had violated by reimposing sanctions without cause. Biden basically said "no u" and then was entirely unwilling to budge from the US's unreasonable position or make meaningful overtures. Now, the US's negotiating partners appear somewhat less eager to reenter the deal, and the Biden administration is complaining of their stubbornness. I don't know whether I believe that the Biden administration is actually this stupid or whether they're just pretending to be so, while in reality implementing the foreign policy establishment's usual anti-Iran policy and just acting like they're interested in reestablishing the JCPOA.

I'll probably add a few more summaries to this later, but I haven't been reading the news a lot lately, so I want to catch up on events in Libya, Sudan, Iraq, and perhaps elsewhere before writing paragraphs for them.

Kaputa on
HefflingshrykeGiantGeek2020ErlecIncenjucarSolar
«134

Posts

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited February 10
    CNN has an interactive investigation into the aftermath of the bombing at Kabul airport on August 26, 2021. Despite the Pentagon's official line being that all deaths were caused by the bomb, the investigation sure makes it seem like some of the US and British troop opened fire on the mass of civilians present.

    CW: CNN itself has a caution that there are disturbing images and audio present in the report. There's some heavy stuff present, view with discretion.

    As a reminder, three days after the airport bombing, the US conducted a drone strike that killed 10 civilians, most of them children, and steadfastly denied that they had killed any civilians, until the NYT and other outlets definitively demonstrated that the vehicle they had targeted was driven by a humanitarian activist, not a terrorist.

    DarkPrimus on
    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    FANTOMASKaputaOneAngryPossumApogeeMan in the MistsYamiB.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular


    Looks like we're committing to just stealing that money we froze

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    SmrtnikBullheadDarkPrimusHefflingGiantGeek2020KelorStarZapperMan in the MistshonovereYamiB.MagellFANTOMASKayne Red Robe
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    That is some seriously fucked up shit.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    Styrofoam SammichDarkPrimusjungleroomxKelorStarZapperMan in the MistsMagellSolar
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Hey, how much Saudi money has the US seized for 9/11 reparations?

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    jungleroomxKrieghundGiantGeek2020BullheadKelorIncenjucarMan in the MistsCojo MojoSmrtnikhonovereHefflingYamiB.MagellSolarGiggles_FunsworthRedTide
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    This reads like the money to 9/11 victims is cover for using the money in Afghanistan.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    This reads like the money to 9/11 victims is cover for using the money in Afghanistan.

    Its not our money to use for anything

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    DarkPrimusMan in the MistsSmrtnikYamiB.MagellFANTOMASGiggles_Funsworth
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Intercept writer
    There’s enough food in Afghanistan to feed everyone; the issue is the currency crisis triggered by depriving access to the central banks own funds. This effectively makes it permanent and will kill huge numbers of innocent people, none of whom had anything to do with 9/11.

    NYT
    Max Fisher wrote:
    Afghans are starving not because of insufficient aid, but because the US forcibly emptied govt coffers, triggering a currency crisis and shutting down govt salaries and services. This move is a death sentence for untold numbers of civilians, including many kids and unborn babies.

    Americans generously "solving" the issue of the crisis that Americans created by converting some of the reserves into temporary aid and stealing the rest is fucked. There is no good way to "use" another country's entire central bank assets; you either give it back or you utterly destroy their economy and financial system, rudimentary as they might have been, for a generation. There's no nice middle ground to be had here.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    DarkPrimusMan in the MistsKaputaFANTOMASGiggles_Funsworth
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    shryke wrote: »
    This reads like the money to 9/11 victims is cover for using the money in Afghanistan.

    Its not our money to use for anything

    Not sure what that has to do with anything I said.

    The move seems to be a response to complaints of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan by putting money towards humanitarian relief in Afghanistan but in a way that lets you say you are addressing the issue without having to give money to the Taliban. And then you throw a bunch of it at whatever counts as "9/11 victims" too to head off domestic complaints about spending money on people in Afghanistan.

    shryke on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    This reads like the money to 9/11 victims is cover for using the money in Afghanistan.

    Its not our money to use for anything

    Not sure what that has to do with anything I said.

    The move seems to be a response to complaints of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan by putting money towards humanitarian relief in Afghanistan but in a way that lets you say you are addressing the issue without having to give money to the Taliban. And then you throw a bunch of it at whatever counts as "9/11 victims" too to head off domestic complaints about spending money on people in Afghanistan.

    Its doing something with the money we stole while stupidly attempting to avoid any possible negative press. This whole thing is policy by media consultant. Absolutely abhorrent

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    DarkPrimusMan in the MistsKaputaMagellFANTOMASGiggles_Funsworth
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    This reads like the money to 9/11 victims is cover for using the money in Afghanistan.

    Its not our money to use for anything

    Not sure what that has to do with anything I said.

    The move seems to be a response to complaints of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan by putting money towards humanitarian relief in Afghanistan but in a way that lets you say you are addressing the issue without having to give money to the Taliban. And then you throw a bunch of it at whatever counts as "9/11 victims" too to head off domestic complaints about spending money on people in Afghanistan.

    Do you endorse this move, or are you just explaining what you see as the political calculus behind the move?

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    FANTOMAS
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    This reads like the money to 9/11 victims is cover for using the money in Afghanistan.

    Its not our money to use for anything

    Not sure what that has to do with anything I said.

    The move seems to be a response to complaints of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan by putting money towards humanitarian relief in Afghanistan but in a way that lets you say you are addressing the issue without having to give money to the Taliban. And then you throw a bunch of it at whatever counts as "9/11 victims" too to head off domestic complaints about spending money on people in Afghanistan.

    Its doing something with the money we stole while stupidly attempting to avoid any possible negative press. This whole thing is policy by media consultant. Absolutely abhorrent
    Yeah. I think Shryke's assessment of the Biden administration's thinking is likely correct, but man that is some craven shit.

    Like, if your dilemma is "try to stop a famine" vs "try to avoid bad headlines" and your reaction is "let's try and split the difference," that is indefensible.

    Kaputa on
    GiantGeek2020Man in the Mists
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    This reads like the money to 9/11 victims is cover for using the money in Afghanistan.

    Its not our money to use for anything

    Not sure what that has to do with anything I said.

    The move seems to be a response to complaints of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan by putting money towards humanitarian relief in Afghanistan but in a way that lets you say you are addressing the issue without having to give money to the Taliban. And then you throw a bunch of it at whatever counts as "9/11 victims" too to head off domestic complaints about spending money on people in Afghanistan.

    Do you endorse this move, or are you just explaining what you see as the political calculus behind the move?

    Lanz asked this exact same question in the exact same way a few days ago in the previous MENA thread

    Why have you and Lanz suddenly decided to call out shyrke repeatedly with the same phrasing?

    shryke
  • I needed a gnome to post.I needed a gnome to post. boom Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    because shryke is incredibly difficult to read

    it's extremely common to be in a conversation with multiple people on these forums who are approaching from completely different angles - some saying what they think should happen, some attempting to analyze what they think the rationalization is for those doing things. sometimes it's hard to tell if you're arguing the same thing so it's useful to clarify!

    I needed a gnome to post. on
    liEt3nH.png
    FANTOMAS
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    It really doesn’t matter. “They’re doing X so we can have cover to do Y.” Ok, X bad is and Y and is terrible. Like, fundamentally terrible in way that makes the problem nearly impossible to resolve in the future. Doing something to be able do something else isn’t excusable if both things you’re doing are awful things you shouldn’t be doing.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    IncenjucarGiggles_Funsworth
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    because shryke is incredibly difficult to read

    it's extremely common to be in a conversation with multiple people on these forums who are approaching from completely different angles - some saying what they think should happen, some attempting to analyze what they think the rationalization is for those doing things. sometimes it's hard to tell if you're arguing the same thing so it's useful to clarify!

    He was stating the reality of the situation. It's disingenuous to the extreme to suggest that he was "endorsing" it

    If DarkPrimus doesn't like people doing this to him, maybe he shouldn't do it to other posters

  • TroggTrogg Registered User regular
    This is a ****ing fiasco. This is a miserable compromise between reality and The Blob.

    Half the money goes to Afghanistan and half gets dumped into some slush fund for the offspring of a bunch of old white rich senators in America.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    There are just so many less blatantly evil things they could do, like holding onto the money and spending it on food drops and refugee aid.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    ronzo wrote: »
    because shryke is incredibly difficult to read

    it's extremely common to be in a conversation with multiple people on these forums who are approaching from completely different angles - some saying what they think should happen, some attempting to analyze what they think the rationalization is for those doing things. sometimes it's hard to tell if you're arguing the same thing so it's useful to clarify!

    He was stating the reality of the situation. It's disingenuous to the extreme to suggest that he was "endorsing" it

    If DarkPrimus doesn't like people doing this to him, maybe he shouldn't do it to other posters

    I asked whether or not they were endorsing it because I couldn't tell if they were endorsing it or not, for Pete's sake!

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Styrofoam SammichTefMan in the MistsMagellFANTOMAS
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    ronzo wrote: »
    because shryke is incredibly difficult to read

    it's extremely common to be in a conversation with multiple people on these forums who are approaching from completely different angles - some saying what they think should happen, some attempting to analyze what they think the rationalization is for those doing things. sometimes it's hard to tell if you're arguing the same thing so it's useful to clarify!

    He was stating the reality of the situation. It's disingenuous to the extreme to suggest that he was "endorsing" it

    If DarkPrimus doesn't like people doing this to him, maybe he shouldn't do it to other posters

    I asked whether or not they were endorsing it because I couldn't tell if they were endorsing it or not, for Pete's sake!

    If you really couldn't tell, that's some really bad-faith reading of that post.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    ronzo wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    ronzo wrote: »
    because shryke is incredibly difficult to read

    it's extremely common to be in a conversation with multiple people on these forums who are approaching from completely different angles - some saying what they think should happen, some attempting to analyze what they think the rationalization is for those doing things. sometimes it's hard to tell if you're arguing the same thing so it's useful to clarify!

    He was stating the reality of the situation. It's disingenuous to the extreme to suggest that he was "endorsing" it

    If DarkPrimus doesn't like people doing this to him, maybe he shouldn't do it to other posters

    I asked whether or not they were endorsing it because I couldn't tell if they were endorsing it or not, for Pete's sake!

    If you really couldn't tell, that's some really bad-faith reading of that post.

    Asking people their opinions and to clarify their position is the opposite of bad faith lol

    Anyway, we're going to stick 3.5 billion we stole in a fund where it may or may not actually even get spent and then point to that every time someone asks why we're not doing anything to help famine victims in Afghanistan.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Man in the Mists
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Honestly this action by the Biden administration is repugnant. We don't have any right to the money we seized, we're just holding it because we're pissed that the Taliban embarrassed our military and government. And now we're going to take all that money and split it between maybe helping the people of Afghanistan a tiny bit and some fund that is claimed to be for victims of 9/11 but is almost certainly going to end up going to the pockets of people that already have more money than sense. Meanwhile we continue propping up monstrous regimes like Saudi Arabia, a country that is probably more culpable for the 9/11 attacks than any other. Just utterly awful.

    steam_sig.png
    Styrofoam SammichTefDarkPrimusMan in the MistsStarZapperTroggMagellSolarBullheadPolaritieRedTide
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    “Stating the facts of the matter” would be stating that the Biden admin is not handing back money that they seized in the first place. Talking about it in the frame of reference of, “sending aid to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan” presupposes that the money belongs to the US in the first place, which is inherently a political position to take.

    E: Ronzo are you doing that thing again where you assert that all the leftist posters are in some kind of shadowy cabal to embarrass the centrists? This sort of tribalism is really not helpful, not even getting into how laughably paranoid the supposition is in the first place

    Tef on
    Styrofoam SammichWiseManTobesMan in the MistsUrsusFANTOMAS
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    Tef wrote: »
    E: Ronzo are you doing that thing again where you assert that all the leftist posters are in some kind of shadowy cabal to embarrass the centrists? This sort of tribalism is really not helpful, not even getting into how laughably paranoid the supposition is in the first place


    Look, when people who share centrist liberal values hit Agree, that just means that they share similar centrist liberal values and, well, agree with each other.

    When progressive leftists hit Agree, that means they're operating in tandem as a professional agitprop outfit funded by the Kremlin to make the United States government look bad by plainly stating actual things they are actually doing. How else do you explain like half a dozen people holding similar viewpoints? :razz:

    DarkPrimus on
    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Tef wrote: »
    E: Ronzo are you doing that thing again where you assert that all the leftist posters are in some kind of shadowy cabal to embarrass the centrists? This sort of tribalism is really not helpful, not even getting into how laughably paranoid the supposition is in the first place


    Look, when people who share centrist liberal values hit Agree, that just means that they share similar centrist liberal values and, well, agree with each other.

    When progressive leftists hit Agree, that means they're operating in tandem as a professional agitprop outfit funded by the Kremlin to make the United States government look bad by plainly stating actual things they are actually doing. How else do you explain like half a dozen people holding similar viewpoints?

    Hi.

    Y'all complain about it when folks do this shit to you, so maybe don't do it to others.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."
    FencingsaxLord_AsmodeusForar
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    Sorry Jeffe, I was just treating the forums as "kind of a digital bar," you know, where I could goof around with friends a little and have some enjoyable conversation?

    I probably should have included a :razz: at the end of it to indicate I wasn't being serious.

    DarkPrimus on
    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Sorry Jeffe, I was just treating the forums as "kind of a digital bar," you know, where I could goof around with friends a little and have some enjoyable conversation?

    I probably should have included a :razz: at the end of it to indicate I wasn't being serious.

    For the confused among you, DP is using the same language as I used in a PM to him once when I mistakenly made a good faith effort to explain why we care about trying to maintain a civil atmosphere in the forums.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    edited February 13
    Tef was warned for this.
    C’mon Jeffe, don’t be a sourpuss. We’re all under a lot of strain at the moment, a bit of levity in the face of “the leftists are coordinating against us!” seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Like, when zag, sax, incen etc come into a thread and all post along similar lines, my first reaction is not “these guys must be coordinating!”. It’s understanding that they are working from a set of earnestly held principles, that while not ones I share, have an internal consistency

    Bogart on
  • StarZapperStarZapper Vermont, Bizzaro world.Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Honestly this action by the Biden administration is repugnant. We don't have any right to the money we seized, we're just holding it because we're pissed that the Taliban embarrassed our military and government. And now we're going to take all that money and split it between maybe helping the people of Afghanistan a tiny bit and some fund that is claimed to be for victims of 9/11 but is almost certainly going to end up going to the pockets of people that already have more money than sense. Meanwhile we continue propping up monstrous regimes like Saudi Arabia, a country that is probably more culpable for the 9/11 attacks than any other. Just utterly awful.

    I agree it's disgusting and shameful that we've outright stolen the money of the Afghan people and are basically going to waste it to placate a tiny subsect of people... however, it's also unclear what feasible actions are left to the administration at this point. The judiciary has ruled that the victims of 9/11 are entitled to it, and the compromise that the administration came up with is giving 50% back in the form of humanitarian aid. Still fucking shameful and a disgrace, but I think alot of the fault lies on the Judicial system (as do so many of our problems...) I guess they could just tell the judge to fuck off, but that's not really a thing Democrat's do (they should.)

    Tef
  • asurasur Registered User regular
    edited February 13
    The default judgement is a joke of a case. A $7 billion dollars default judgement for 150 victims is ludicrous to begin with and it's entirely unclear why even half of that sum would fall on Afghanistan, the country that wasn't even part of the lawsuit, instead of the multiple parties that were sued.

    If this was a valid judgement, then the US should have seized Iranian funds or assets over the past 10 years, but obviously didn't because that would have caused an issue where they figure they can take this money without consequence.

    asur on
    StarZapperTefMan in the Mists
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Hey guys, if a mod says something it isn’t an invitation for everyone to start giving them shit or arguing. Pm a mod if you have a question.

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    So, possible good news?

    "US and Iranian officials suggest nuclear talks nearing conclusion"
    Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Bagheri Kani, said on Wednesday that the parties in the Austrian capital are “closer than ever” to reaching a deal.

    In Washington, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said the coming days would decide whether the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), can be restored.

    “Our assessment is that we are in the midst of the very final stages of, as I said before, a complex negotiation with the key stakeholders here,” Price said.

    “This is a decisive period during which we’ll be able to determine whether a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA is in the offing or if it’s not.”

    Kani's statement is much more blunt and optimistic than Price's babble, but regardless it's good to hear. I hadn't read anything about the Vienna talks since they started, so this positive assessment caught me off guard. I had until now perceived the Biden administration as not really caring about returning to the JCPOA, and early reports were suggesting that the Raisi administration was taking a harder line than their predecessors. It's too early to say for sure, but I'll happily accept having been completely wrong about all of this if the JCPOA is revived.

    AimOneAngryPossum
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    So, possible good news?

    "US and Iranian officials suggest nuclear talks nearing conclusion"
    Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Bagheri Kani, said on Wednesday that the parties in the Austrian capital are “closer than ever” to reaching a deal.

    In Washington, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said the coming days would decide whether the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), can be restored.

    “Our assessment is that we are in the midst of the very final stages of, as I said before, a complex negotiation with the key stakeholders here,” Price said.

    “This is a decisive period during which we’ll be able to determine whether a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA is in the offing or if it’s not.”

    Kani's statement is much more blunt and optimistic than Price's babble, but regardless it's good to hear. I hadn't read anything about the Vienna talks since they started, so this positive assessment caught me off guard. I had until now perceived the Biden administration as not really caring about returning to the JCPOA, and early reports were suggesting that the Raisi administration was taking a harder line than their predecessors. It's too early to say for sure, but I'll happily accept having been completely wrong about all of this if the JCPOA is revived.

    I think, possibly, that the Biden administration was looking for a JCPOA+ deal. Get their ballistic missile program or the Houthi stuff in there. Iran was going with 'restore the old deal or fuck off'.

    I think the Ukraine situation might have shook some things loose. Iran and Russia are relatively close, but the value of an ally who is even more in the doghouse than you are ain't that much, and getting Iran fully back into the world economy might help lower energy prices.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    GiantGeek2020
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular


    Fang is with The Intercept.



    So we're stealing from Afghanistan on behalf of law firms and lobbyists who see a big pile of easy money

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    DarkPrimusshrykeStarZapperBullheadMan in the MistsMagellhonovere
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Wow, not even trying to couch that victim-blaming rhetoric.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    TicaldfjamFANTOMAS
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited February 17
    Those are the kinds of people I would like to buy a flight to Kandahar for so that they can have their own opportunity to stand up to the Taliban.

    I mean the US should be paying reparations to Afghanistan for forcing a 20 year war on a country which killed hundreds of thousands. Instead we are stealing their money and crushing their economy during a fucking famine. I can't deal with it man. The Biden admin is using starvation as a weapon, not even to accomplish any war aim, but just as vengeance because the US was defeated and humiliated. It doesn't even make sense from a domestic politics standpoint, because it's not like this dumpster fire of an administration is getting another term regardless. Ugh.

    Kaputa on
    BullheadTicaldfjamGiggles_Funsworth
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 17
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Those are the kinds of people I would like to buy a flight to Kandahar for so that they can have their own opportunity to stand up to the Taliban.

    I mean the US should be paying reparations to Afghanistan for forcing a 20 year war on a country a killed hundreds of thousands. Instead we are stealing their money and crushing their economy during a fucking famine. I can't deal with it man. The Biden admin is using starvation as a weapon, not even to accomplish any war aim, but just as vengeance because the US was defeated and humiliated. It doesn't even make sense from a domestic politics standpoint, because it's not like this dumpster fire of an administration is getting another term regardless. Ugh.

    This does not seem to be about vengeance to me. It's entirely to avoid "Biden funds the Taliban" stories. Though I'm sure there's plenty of people who also just think "Fuck the Taliban".

    And of course, once you announce where a big pile of money is going, the people looking to have a bite come out of the woodwork.

    shryke on
    Fencingsax
  • Man in the MistsMan in the Mists Registered User regular
    Because "Biden is making the people of Afghanistan starve because we got a black eye there" is such a better look for the US.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 17
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Those are the kinds of people I would like to buy a flight to Kandahar for so that they can have their own opportunity to stand up to the Taliban.

    I mean the US should be paying reparations to Afghanistan for forcing a 20 year war on a country a killed hundreds of thousands. Instead we are stealing their money and crushing their economy during a fucking famine. I can't deal with it man. The Biden admin is using starvation as a weapon, not even to accomplish any war aim, but just as vengeance because the US was defeated and humiliated. It doesn't even make sense from a domestic politics standpoint, because it's not like this dumpster fire of an administration is getting another term regardless. Ugh.

    Imagine you are an old Democratic politician and the only thing you know how to do is cower in fear of potential Republican attack ads. Under that set of circumstances and only that set of circumstances do these actions make sense.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
    Man in the MistsshrykeLabelGiantGeek2020FANTOMAS
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Because "Biden is making the people of Afghanistan starve because we got a black eye there" is such a better look for the US.

    To the domestic audience? Absolutely. The media ain't focusing on famine in Afghanistan.

    AimHamHamJPhoenix-DBigJoeMMarathon
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    It won't even be effective because the GOP will attack anyway. But old motherfuckers never learn.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
    Man in the MistsMagellDarkPrimusLabelGiantGeek2020FANTOMASMill
Sign In or Register to comment.