Are you still loving Biden?

Post Reply New Topic

No civilians have died in any of Biden’s strikes. In general, US air strikes tend to have very low civilian casualties.

Between 2016 and 2020, 2,122 civilians were killed in air strikes over 48 months. A high estimate is that 69% - let’s round up to 70% - were killed by the US. The Trump presidency dramatically loosened rules of engagement which resulted in a big increase in civilian deaths. Obviously I would support tightening those restrictions to get back to the Obama-era level.

Between 1 May 2021 and 5 Aug 2021, 1,031 civilians were been killed by the Taliban. Let’s call that four months even though it’s really just over three.

So, in 60 months, US airstrikes killed 2122*0.7= 1486 civilians in Afghanistan.

In 4 months following America pulling out of Afghanistan as you have been demanding for years, 1,031 civilians have been killed by the Taliban.

So, in short, doing things your way for three months has proven 42 times more deadly than doing things Donald Trump’s way, even if I deliberately choose numbers to make your idea seem better and round in your favour. I think Trump was terrible at foreign policy, but you’re 42 times worse.

Source on airstrikes: https://aoav.org.uk/2021/40-of-all-civi ... -children/

And source on Afghanistan casualties under the Taliban offensive: https://web.archive.org/web/20210805212 ... ugust.html

Long list of achievements? Such as the crime bill he spent his entire campaign apologizing for, the Thomas confirmation that he spent his campaign apologizing for, and making it harder for people to clear debt via bankruptcy as a favor to his home state donors who base their corporations there to avoid taxes? Can you think of one good thing he actually did in his years in the Senate?



Say what you will, that story was virtually ignored by the mainstream media, which then seized on the thinnest of evidence to dismiss it (she once wrote something nice about Putin!), despite the fact that Tara Reade had much more corroboration of her story than Christine Blasey Ford did with her accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, which was and is still treated as gospel.

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/t ... accusation



There's a whole lot more, there was the steel worker he called "full of sh*t" for accurately questioning his gun policy, there was the whole "lying dog faced pony soldier thing", the multiple times he said he wanted to physically fight Trump, I mean quite a bit of this is on video, and there are many incidents. I don't think you can really frame a lot of it as mere "straight talk" either, it's downright bizarre.



Heh, the guy is an empty suit, has been his entire political career, he's not left wing he's just being blown in that direction because that's who currently has the energy in the party, though I agree that the Afghan withdrawal is going to be a stain on his legacy (and Obama's, when the truth about his term is more broadly known).

What I'm saying here is not that Biden is as bad as Trump, what I'm saying is that he's truly a lesser evil in that he actually has many of the same flaws, just less severely and obviously, and that Democrats need to get off their collective high horse about him. I've just been amazed at how many people I know personally were disparaging him as no better than Trump right up until he clinched the primary, then turned "vote blue no matter who" (truly the most cultish political slogan of my lifetime), and now are acting as if he's actually good and they were excited to vote for him, it's the political revisionism that I've gotten to see up close and in real time that's so offended me here.

America was going down the financial gurgler because of the wars they were involved in.
Trump was a businessman, rather than a warmonger, and wanted to get out to focus on America becoming economically strong again.

Keep in mind, I am not a Trump fan, just saying it as it is.

And the Afghani people are going to pay heavily for that hasty withdrawl.
Shades of Saigon.

Maybe Uncle Joe isn't a hyperpartisan?



Who does?
American politics is a global joke in general, and its people are determined to bring the country to its knees.
Tragic...

I think this image probably demonstrates it better:

As I recall, Biden actually spent most of his campaign talking up the Crime Bill (though he did apologise on occasion, he also hyped the aspects that are not presently controversial). It’s one of the best examples of the law of unintended consequences; it was extremely popular at the time, particularly with the communities that were experiencing the most crime, but some of its provisions have had utterly devastating and unjust impacts.

I was thinking of, for example, Biden’s strong advocacy for the Balkans, NATO enlargement, Amtrak support, preventing violence against women, etc.

Strongly disagree on Ford vs Reade, let’s just leave it at that because I suspect if we went down that route I’d quite quickly think a lot less of you, which I don’t want to do.

Agree that Biden tends to move with the crowd in the Democratic Party, although he has been at the dovish end of the arty for 15 years now (he was also weirdly against the Gulf War - go figure). I also think his strong Union stance is genuine - he seems much more pro-Unions than most Democrats. But as far as I am concerned, it doesn’t matter whether his flaws are the result of genuine principles or following the crowd. What matters is that the flaws exist. At a time when America needs to bust the police and teachers unions so they stop protecting bad employees, Biden is calling for an expansion of their powers At a time when about half of Americans don’t have the right to work without joining a named union, Biden wants to abolish right to work outright These aren’t things that the Schumers or even the Pelosis of the world are calling for, they’re coming from Uncle Joe himself.

If you really believe none of Biden's strikes have killed no civilians, then you are more out of touch than I imagined.

https://www.salon.com/2021/08/12/stop-t ... an-cities/

You're pushing of pro war propanda, and the constant regurgitation of establishment talking points, is really disgusting!

The sad reality is there is no way to vote against the interests of the Military Industrial Complex. If you want to know what the last 20 years of the disastrous regime change policy is really all about, I recommend reading The Partners for a New American Century document. It's chilling!

To be clear, I was talking about the strikes you mentioned in bold, on Syria and Somalia, not Afghanistan. But I do appreciate the correction - it seems one of the strikes in Helmand may have killed a civilian: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/offi ... 98994.html

I do note that you haven’t really attempted to address my central claim, being that withdrawal has killed more people than staying would have. (Heck, the air strike in question might not have been called if you had left troops on the ground.) Do you have anything substantial to add on this point, or are you going to stick to your tried and tested strategy of accusing everyone who points out your mistakes of being “establishment”, whatever that’s supposed to mean?

Well, I can only stomach reading so much of your posts at a time. I do miss things. Have mercy on me.

You did say Biden's bombs haven't killed any civilians. You also claimed there have been limited casualties in most of military misadventures, which is ridiculous, it's hard to take it seriously. Go look up the estimated casualties for the war in Iraq, which conservative estimates are in the several hundred thousands.

As far as your "central claim" is concerned, that is something you can't really confirm. And I've already agreed that the pullout was not done properly.

You talk about lives lost as in such an abstract. They don't mean a thing to you. What you fail to understand is the last 20 years of American foreign policy has left the entire region in a atate of chaos and bloodshed. If the state of perpetual war doesn't end, the U.S. will not last much longer as an empire. Study your history.

Every country we've gone into the last 20 years is worse off then when we went in. I know you really believe we have altruistic motives for our interventions, but you just don't what you're talking about.

As much as it surprises me, we agree on this.

Both wars were intractable, and America should never have been involved in either one.

Well, at least there's no mean Tweets.

Source: https://babylonbee.com/news/study-finds-92-of-taliban-are-happy-they-voted-for-biden

You need to educate yourself about your own country. Regardless of who is in charge, the US has been both a national security state (started with a secret war on communism then moved to war on terror) and a military-industrial complex since the early 1950s.

It's actually a republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, who in 1961 warned "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

Eisenhower was worried about the costs of an arms race with the Soviet Union, and the resources it would take from other areas -- such as building hospitals and schools.

Every president has had to deal with military hawks in the US military-industrial complex who operate in league with the NSA and CIA in getting involved in foreign wars. What Eisenhower made clear is the office of president lost control of the military a long time ago.

Getting worked up over Biden and other democrats influence over the military is pointless and somewhat ignorant given they are no better or worse than republicans when it comes to US military actions overseas. It's actually getting quite irritating.

in order for amuuuurican politics to not make one wanna go right out and take a long walk off a short pier, one must severely lower one's expectations of our leadership and policy, to merely not being quite so evil. that is all amuuuurican is good for.