Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To filibuster or not to filibuster? Biden needs to get a move on before Doofus Duck waddles back into the swamp (Biden-Trump Thread #128)

978 replies

TheNorthWestPawsage · 24/07/2021 17:17

Still waiting for the kraken to appear.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
PerkingFaintly · 17/08/2021 12:16

I can believe that analysis by Watling: that this takeover has been going on some time, and this point was always going to be reached.

We're seeing it on TV because of the swiftness of the final stage, before TV cameras have been shut down; but that's about our experience outside the country, not about Afghans.

From the point of view of interpreters and other folk at particularly high risk who could have been got out (and I hope many still can be), the timing makes a difference.

From the point of view of women being forced back into the home... perhaps not so much.

Although I take your point, Roussette, that there will be complexity I don't know about.

Lweji · 17/08/2021 12:16

They did help win in Europe in 1945

The only vanquished countries were Germany and Italy, then. But their own people were fed up with the war. And Germany was split in two.

The Marshall plan helped rebuild an already developed nation.

Bush dad got it right in the first Gulf war. In and out as soon as Kuwait was freed.
Son decided to get in the swamps that were Iraq and Afghanistan without any exit strategy.

Lweji · 17/08/2021 12:18

I suspect the people living in the cities were also largely oblivious of what was happening in reality in the country.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 17/08/2021 14:02

Just quickly: I realise my post may have seemed anti-American, but it really wasn't intended to be; just a sort of worried wondering about whether America (and a lot of other countries too) getting involved anywhere with a military invasion has turned out well. I don't know about what the results have been like in places like Dominica and Grenada and Panama, nor come to that Uganda (isn't there still a fair old mess in the DRC and CAR next door in spite of of that one?) but the ones I do know about seem to have reverted to being fairly nasty after the US left. Is there all that much point in trying to help in other countries?

prettybird · 17/08/2021 14:38

Don't forget that in WW2, it wasn't just the USA "wot won it" although that's what they'd like people to think - the USSR played a large part in the victory (or rather, Hitler's fatal mistake of opening up a 2nd front which the USSR then manage to resist, albeit at great cost).

prettybird · 17/08/2021 14:45

My Dad was saying on Sunday that there's only ever been one war that the US has won pretty much on its own and that was against the mighty powerhouse of Grenada Hmm

AcrossthePond55 · 17/08/2021 14:47

Is there all that much point in trying to help in other countries?

I think that's a question a lot of us here are asking. And the answer is starting to flip from 'yes' to 'no'. The problem is that we've gotten so used to being the world's 'police force' and feeling a need to 'give them democracy' that our leaders seem to want to just jump right in and other countries seem to want to 'think badly' of us if we don't. I don't know the answer to this problem, but I do think there needs to be some kind of shift in responsibility. Humanitarian aid, sure. Advisory assistance, yes. But not troops, at least, not troops without a hard and fast exit date.

I don't think our involvement on the world stage in this manner is a result of WWII. We were directly attacked at Pearl Harbor, that's what brought us in. Our involvement in Europe was, I think, more because the European Axis Powers declared war on us when we declared war on Japan. If Japan hadn't attacked us would we have become militarily involved in WWII? Hard to say. There certainly was a lot of 'stay out of it, not our fight' feeling in the US back then. I think our sending troops hither and yon harks back mostly to the the 'Red Scare' and the McCarthy era fear that 'the Commies will get us'. That's what sent us to Korea, that's what sent us to Viet Nam.

lionheart · 17/08/2021 15:02

The courage this takes:

twitter.com/i/status/1427619743989735429

PerkingFaintly · 17/08/2021 15:29

Well it's sold as "help", but "intervention" is just intervention. It may be experienced as a good, bad or mixed thing by the occupied country, and of course differently by different groups.

There are many motives for intervention, ranging from pursuing the strategic interests of the US (or of the UK / Russia / China / other occupying power) to being a populist move intended for consumption by the domestic electorate – as pastiched in Wag the Dog.

That's all trite to say, but still true. We should never be fobbed off with the word "help" without looking under the covers.

And I completely agree, Across: troops need an achievable exit date/criterion. Otherwise, what's it for.

It's been a horribly frustrating experience over the last two decades seeing the rhetoric used about Afghanistan and Iraq. When people are feeling hurt after a terrorist attack in the West, they've blithely come out with comments like "Bomb them back to the Stone Age" and in so many words, "I don't care if that country was nothing to do with it, or if it kills civilians or makes conflict worse: it will make me feel better."

I really have seen people come out with shit like that – although they don't usually join up the clauses. High explosive as therapy for their bad feelz. I just... have no words.

And all the time you know that a time like this withdrawal from Afghanistan is coming. It's been in the post since the troops went in.

And the people shouting about how awful it now is ('cos it is awful), and labelling as a Bad Guy the person left holding the parcel when the music stopped, are often the very same people who were shouting for the troops to go in the first place.

In the UK, I remember very well seeing in people's windows posters printed by some of the newspapers (the Sun? The Daily Mail?) saying "I Support Our Boys" – meaning support sending them into harm's way in Iraq to start a conflict that anyone with an ounce of sense could see would (and did) cause mass deaths and regional instability and trigger terrorism in the UK.

Then the same papers get a second bite at the cherry being outraged about the consequences. Dubya who instigated the Second Gulf War as well as the invasion of Afghanistan, got rewarded with a second term in office – and skipped off into the sunset before the other shoe dropped.

I don't know. I'm feeling very despondent today.

I get that people have great passion to "help" when they see an obvious wrong. But it all gets so much more complicated from there. And there's no lack of people with very different agendas queuing up to channel even the most well-meant passion into something useful for themselves.

Lweji · 17/08/2021 15:30

Is there all that much point in trying to help in other countries?

Yes, in some circumstances.

Say, Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq. It wasn't only the US, of course, but that's one situation where the outside forces were successful, because it was a foreign invasion.

Going in to fight a local dominant power is a defeat from the start. Even the opponents are likely to resist the outside influence. Imagine Trump succeeding in his coup, and the rest of NATO (or worse, Russia and China) going in to reinstate Biden.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 17/08/2021 15:38

@prettybird

My Dad was saying on Sunday that there's only ever been one war that the US has won pretty much on its own and that was against the mighty powerhouse of Grenada Hmm
Didn't the USA defeat Mexico at one point?
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 17/08/2021 15:47

@Lweji

Is there all that much point in trying to help in other countries?

Yes, in some circumstances.

Say, Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq. It wasn't only the US, of course, but that's one situation where the outside forces were successful, because it was a foreign invasion.

Going in to fight a local dominant power is a defeat from the start. Even the opponents are likely to resist the outside influence. Imagine Trump succeeding in his coup, and the rest of NATO (or worse, Russia and China) going in to reinstate Biden.

Yes, you're right: Kuwait was justified. (Except if Hussein had been given to understand, by America, that his invasion would be ok... There was quite a lot to that effect at the time, and I don't know the ins and outs of it. If that was true, he must have been very surprised by Operation Desert Storm.)
prettybird · 17/08/2021 16:07

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - you're right. His full quote was "since WW2 - which the US didn't win on its own anyway" Wink

AcrossthePond55 · 17/08/2021 18:05

"When people are feeling hurt after a terrorist attack in the West, they've blithely come out with comments like ""Bomb them back to the Stone Age"" and in so many words, "I don't care if that country was nothing to do with it, or if it kills civilians or makes conflict worse: it will make me feel better."

Oh, yes. Another very common remark/bumper sticker/FB post in certain parts of the US around 9/11 was "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" with regards to the Arab world 'at large'. Disgusting.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 17/08/2021 19:53

That's a quotation from someone, isn't it. Um... Wikipedia is my friend.

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." is a phrase reportedly spoken by the commander of the Albigensian Crusade, prior to the massacre at Béziers on 22 July 1209. A direct translation of the Medieval Latin phrase is "Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own". Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric was the military commander of the Crusade in its initial phase and leader of this first major military action of the Crusade, the assault on Béziers, and was reported by Caesarius of Heisterbach to have uttered the order.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caedite_eos._Novit_enim_Dominus_qui_sunt_eius.

I'd've thought we might have grown up a bit since 1209, but apparently not.)

borntobequiet · 17/08/2021 23:56

This latest episode of the Great Game was never going to end well for the USA. It didn’t end well for the British Empire or the USSR either.
The West went into Afghanistan after Bin Laden. (His outfit was Saudi. As observed in another thread, no-one talks about the fact that 9/11 was a Saudi enterprise.). They stayed for the reasons others did in previous times - political advantage, power, influence.

To filibuster or not to filibuster? Biden needs to get a move on before Doofus Duck waddles back into the swamp (Biden-Trump Thread #128)
lionheart · 18/08/2021 11:58

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-us-president-important-hannity_uk_611cae65e4b029c152af5815

'Donald Trump has admitted he had no idea how “important” a president really is in a rather revealing interview on Tuesday.

Speaking to Sean Hannity on his Fox News show, the former US president – who left office in January 2021 – suggested he expected state officials to run the country instead, rather than him.'

ChainJane · 18/08/2021 12:05

Interesting point on the BBC earlier about Biden's idiotic and offensive self-imposed deadline of 9/11. Basically Afghanistan is currently at the height of "fighting season" when the Taliban are armed and ready in place to seize control quickly. If the Americans had withdrawn in December or January, it would have been a slower takeover for the Taliban as their resources would have been spread more thinly due to it not being fighting season.

The concept of "fighting seasons" is ancient, it was common in ancient Greece for there to be an annual period where war would be raged. This was because a) light and good weather are nicer for killing and b) burn your opponents crops in the summer and they will suffer all through the winter, meaning they will be weaker for the next fighting season.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 18/08/2021 12:53

he expected state officials to run the country instead, rather than him.

And his picks for jobs were somewhat unfit for purpose, which probably surprised him as well.

lionheart · 18/08/2021 14:23

www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/08/democrats-are-running-out-of-time-to-protect-voting-rights/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=naytev&utm_medium=social

'In the wee hours on Wednesday morning, Republicans once again prevented a vote on the For the People Act, the sweeping democracy reform bill that passed the House in March but was blocked by a Republican filibuster in June.

Later Wednesday, law enforcement in Texas began issuing civil arrest warrants to compel House Democrats who fled the state in July to return to the chamber so that Republicans would have a quorum to pass a sweeping voter suppression bill.'

Lweji · 18/08/2021 17:02

@ChainJane

Interesting point on the BBC earlier about Biden's idiotic and offensive self-imposed deadline of 9/11. Basically Afghanistan is currently at the height of "fighting season" when the Taliban are armed and ready in place to seize control quickly. If the Americans had withdrawn in December or January, it would have been a slower takeover for the Taliban as their resources would have been spread more thinly due to it not being fighting season.

The concept of "fighting seasons" is ancient, it was common in ancient Greece for there to be an annual period where war would be raged. This was because a) light and good weather are nicer for killing and b) burn your opponents crops in the summer and they will suffer all through the winter, meaning they will be weaker for the next fighting season.

I'm not sure you understand how the Taliban have taken over. There was hardly any fighting.