[RD] Biden v. Biden

Biden is now planning a Happy 9/11 withdrawal. My attitude at this point is withdrawing just replaces one problem with another one, but costs alot less in terms of American lives and munies.

I'll admit I'm skeptical that he actually follows through with this withdrawal, rather than pushing out the target date again.
I think if Biden slips the withdrawal date again, he will be asking the Taliban to attack our soldiers. Although, if the Taliban were smart, they'd just keep waiting it out. Killing Americans is a great way to get America to renew military operations in a country, particularly if the Taliban were dumb enough to do any ISIS-style executions.

Honestly, I think the Taliban is already risking the deal to fall apart by how many assassinations they are committing against Afghan civil leaders and notable women. It actually deeply frustrates me that the US doesn't seem to even be warning the Taliban to knock it off. They are clearly setting themselves up for 'rush to Saigon' push by destabilizing the government. They are not interested in sharing power, and we're here letting them get away with egregious acts of political violence (with a misogynistic bent too) while we're still in the country without so much as pushback.

This whole situation is sucky. I don't want the US to be there anymore but I don't want Afghanistan to become the medieval poophole that it used to be.
 
Last edited:
Soviet Union was a big presence. Gorbachev spent a lot of the Iraq Crisis hoping nobody would notice there were still Soviet military technicians employed in Iraq.
Saddam, Nasser, Assad, Sadat, and Meier were nobody's stooges or puppets. Indeed, the Soviet's relations with their Arab allies was more driven by the Soviets trying to bribe the Arabs into not kicking them out with weapons and technical assistance.
America becoming a staunch supporter of Israel was a long and awkward process, driven heavily by domestic political pressures.

You still misunderstand me. Saddam was never an American stooge, we both agree. It is still a fact that he did not have the material means to gas his population, and that "we" supplied that to him. Sure, Soviet influence on the ME is not to be denied, I wouldn't. I am unsure how relevant it is as of 2021.

I'm curious how it is "provably untrue". Iran was not particularly stable, with a spree of political assassinations carried out by radical Shia groups before Mossadeq came to power. When in power, Mossadeq managed to infuriate and turn against him every major political group in Iran. In 1952 Mossadeq was ousted from Prime Minister, but was brought back in over fear of a military mutiny. He subsequently granted himself dictatorial emergency power. Indeed, one of the events that pushed the Shah into removing Mossadeq as Prime Minister was Mossadeq dissolving parliament with government to consist only of his cabinet. I'm also unsure how you can say Iran was most stable then, as only five years before Mossadeq took office, it had been under joint Anglo-Soviet military rule, and before that it was a largely ineffectual government backed by foreign concessions.

I feel like you are making my point here. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that Anglo-Soviet military rule, which relied on colonial-style violence, was not in any way more "orderly" or "stable" than the admittedly chaotic phase that came afterwards. I would argue that what followed was at least some degree of political coherence amongst most Iranians (a majority, I believe, supported nationalizing oil). The phase after the Coup is once again classified by top down power, virtually all the sources I have read confirm that the only thing holding the Shah (who was, especially later, hated by most of the avg population) in power was American support (and violence, of course).

Was '50s Iran an orderly, stable country? Hell no. As you say, assasinations happened, revolutionary groups were becoming more popular, general unrest in the population wasn't uncommon. It's democracy was about as stable as the Weimar Republic's democracy, which means not very stable at all. All of this being said, it is still abundantly clear to me that pre-Coup Iran was both more orderly and stable (and more legit and self-determined, if we want to argue that) than what came both before AND after, for the very clear reason that both the Anglo-Soviet military rule and the post coup rule were held up exclusively via violence, suppression and foreign intervention. If something has to be propped up from outside in order to not fall apart, that something cannot be called stable.

As for Africa: It is very much true that Africa was never peaceful, and it is also very much true that wars of aggression were "a thing", but to compare something like the Bantu migration is comparable to, say, the 30-year-war is a big stretch imho. The most egregious figures for the 30-year-war claim that at least half a million died in battle while more than 10 million people died as consequences of the war, most through famine and disease. I cannot think of any similiarly violent or catastrophic event/war in pre-colonial Africa (but I'm not averse to learning at all!).

Either way, the topic was more "stability" as a broad factor, which doesn't exclusively boil down to war. Europe, imho, already had accelerationist tendencies starting with the enlightenment (Benedict Anderson beautifully shows how people's perception of time itself significantly changed in the span of only a few decades): Reigns lasted shorter, leaders were ousted more often, changed their territory,"traditions" swept away and replaced (inventing traditions), completely new identities constructed (imagined communities), rivalries could heat up, break up and cool down in a matter of only decades, ideologies, treatises and political affiliations were precarious. Europe, for me anyway, has always been the homeland (and sometimes the global nexus) of chaos. That of course is a subjective opinion, not a fact.
 
the 30-year-war is a big stretch imho. The most egregious figures for the 30-year-war claim that at least half a million died in battle while more than 10 million people died as consequences of the war, most through famine and disease. I cannot think of any similiarly violent or catastrophic event/war in pre-colonial Africa
I have not heard that phrase before referring to Africa. Do you mean the Chad/Sudan/Libya struggles, starting with the Chadian Civil War in 1965? Ending with Deby's "democratic" win in 1996?
 
From what I can tell, european and african kingdoms was quite similar and both basically followed the concept might makes right. European states generally treated conquered people, including other europeans as second class citizens and african kingdoms very much participated in triangular trade, conquered people became slaves who could be sold as slaves to the europeans and in return received the tools needed for even more conquest and slave raiding.

Colonization also happened in europe against conquered people, not just in americas, africa and asia and I also suspect non eureopan empires may also been involved in colonization, like China may be a product of colonization. Same can be said about europe, there seems to be a clear line between the territories under roman control and those that was not, even though that was a very long time ago.

I don' see anything special about europeans, non european empires could be as brutal and prone to colonization as euoprean ones, it seems to have more about human nature, might makes right and the victor can claim the territory of the loser and eventually displace them. Eventually some european nations developed military surpassing everyone else, allowing them to conquer alot of the world, but that include many european states as well, not just non european states.

Today the part of Europe that contains France, Benelux, German speaking countries and Scandinavian countries is perhaps the most developed part of the world, having higher labour cost per hour than countries like the US, high life expectancy, low CO2 per gdp produced and so on which indicate some sort of degree of stability. The rest of europe don't seems to perform as well. Fighting a destructive world war or even thirty year war may be less damaging in the long run compared to smaller but constant instabilities.
 
Last edited:
I have not heard that phrase before referring to Africa. Do you mean the Chad/Sudan/Libya struggles, starting with the Chadian Civil War in 1965? Ending with Deby's "democratic" win in 1996?

I think you misunderstood me there, I was trying to say that I am not cogizant of any events similiarly violent and destructive to the European 30-year-war in pre-colonial Africa. (I know there was a lot of war and violence, and obviously there was the pre-colonial slave trade, not trying to play down violence in Africa)
 
I think you misunderstood me there, I was trying to say that I am not cogizant of any events similiarly violent and destructive to the European 30-year-war in pre-colonial Africa. (I know there was a lot of war and violence, and obviously there was the pre-colonial slave trade, not trying to play down violence in Africa)
Really? I googled it and found this book, and assumed you were talking about that.
 
Really? I googled it and found this book, and assumed you were talking about that.

I had actually never heard about that, learned something new today :)
 
Europe, for me anyway, has always been the homeland (and sometimes the global nexus) of chaos. That of course is a subjective opinion, not a fact.

Things are pretty stable there now.

I have a general question though. What do you think it would take to turn Europe into Crazy Town once more? Is a Hitler 2.0 even possible today without having the benefit of surprise that the first one did?
 
Things are pretty stable there now.

I have a general question though. What do you think it would take to turn Europe into Crazy Town once more? Is a Hitler 2.0 even possible today without having the benefit of surprise that the first one did?
My money is on climate change driven migration combined with right wing extremism.
 
Things are pretty stable there now.

I have a general question though. What do you think it would take to turn Europe into Crazy Town once more? Is a Hitler 2.0 even possible today without having the benefit of surprise that the first one did?

France seems to be struggling.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...conomic-medical-and-cultural-crises-1.4552557

Twenty retired French generals, 100 lower-ranking officers and close to 1,000 French soldiers expressed outrage at the state of the country in an open letter to Macron published in the right-wing magazine Valeurs Actuelles on April 21st. The date of publication was pointedly timed to coincide with the 60th anniversary of an attempted putsch against Gen Charles de Gaulle during the Algerian war, and the 20th anniversary of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s qualification for the presidential election run-off.

“France is unravelling,” the generals wrote. They alleged that “hatred between communities” was fanned by “a certain anti-racism” and “Islamism and the hordes of the banlieue”. If Macron continued to “dither”, they warned, “Tomorrow civil war will put an end to the growing chaos and the deaths, for which you will be responsible, will be counted in the thousands.” Continued “laxity” would necessitate “the intervention of our comrades on active duty”, they added.

Marine Le Pen qualified her support for the generals’ letter with the words, “I think these problems can be resolved by a political project that is validated by the French in a democratic framework.” In other words, by voting for her in the presidential election.

On Wednesday, the chief of staff of the armed forces, Gen François Lecointre, announced that 18 signatories who were active duty officers would be disciplined.

The Harris Interactive poll indicated that 58 per cent of the population agree with the message of the generals’ letter, though a majority do not want a military takeover.

Le Pen’s support for the generals destroyed years of efforts to improve the image of the far right, says Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade, a deputy in the National Assembly for Macron’s La République en Marche and spokesman for the party in the last European elections. “She has shown that she is exactly like her father. She is from the anti-republican, brutal extreme right,” he said.

Marine Le Pen
Polls indicate Macron would win 54 per cent of the vote in a presidential run-off, against 46 per cent for Le Pen. That represents a 12-point gain for Le Pen – and a 12-point decline for Macron – since 2017.

“It has never been so possible that Marine Le Pen could win,” says Natacha Polony, the director of Marianne magazine and a frequent commentator on French television. “A Le Pen victory is possible now because part of the left will refuse to vote for Macron in the run-off, and because she no longer frightens some people . . . The only certainty is people feel no matter what they do, the same policies are always adopted . . . This country is filled with anger, resentment and frustration, and when that doesn’t find an outlet, it’s very dangerous.”

Polony agrees that the French electorate has always been angry, but says this time is different. The gilets jaunes movement was unprecedented. “People want to kill cops now, which is new. And people who have spent 10 or 15 years in France are taking up arms because they hate this country. That too is new. You cannot say it’s always been like this. There is no means of structuring this anger.”

BBC says no worries though, France has 1000's of generals, because of course they do. :lol:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56899765
In a country which pays for several thousand former generals on the retired and reserve lists, the support of just 20 of them to such explosive language does call for a sense of perspective, the BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris says.


But this is a Biden vs. Biden thread.

Senator Biden
https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1238254697695326209?lang=en



President Biden
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ex...el-us-india-limit-covid-19-spread-2021-04-30/
Biden bans most travel to U.S. from India to limit COVID-19 spread
 
Last edited:
only as support or whatever , the Germans have 13 000 ex-soldiers or so plotting a coup for the re-establishment of 1937 borders , on Trump friendly Telegramm .
 
I suggest injecting disinfectant instead of following CDC recommendations on travel restriction like ....... every other country on the planet has been doing.
The only criticism is that US and AUS have acted too slowly in this regard.

Here are the (preliminary) results of using U.V. light in the trachea for 20 minutes a day as advocated by President Trump a year ago.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.21252997v1

The other half of his idea, injecting disinfectants, remains suicidal of course.
It would be a hideously painful way to die.

**Edit**
No, I don't know how UV light could be safe for cells inside the throat.
They mention something about UV-A being the least damaging UV to cells but still strong enough to kill virus.
 
Last edited:
Here are the (preliminary) results of using U.V. light in the trachea for 20 minutes a day as advocated by President Trump a year ago.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.21252997v1

Coolies
Though you should probably note the LARGE TEXT disclaimer before claiming success though its sound promising.
E: Probably NOT for everyone as cutting a hole through the neck and inserting a large metal fitting isnt something that can be done easily.

Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
 
Here are the (preliminary) results of using U.V. light in the trachea for 20 minutes a day as advocated by President Trump a year ago.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.21252997v1

The other half of his idea, injecting disinfectants, remains suicidal of course.
It would be a hideously painful way to die.

**Edit**
No, I don't know how UV light could be safe for cells inside the throat.
They mention something about UV-A being the least damaging UV to cells but still strong enough to kill virus.
No controls. N of 5, mortality within 1% of normal bounds.
 
Coolies
Though you should probably note the LARGE TEXT disclaimer before claiming success though its sound promising.
E: Probably NOT for everyone as cutting a hole through the neck and inserting a large metal fitting isnt something that can be done easily.

I don't see any cutting of holes in the neck.
It is inserted through the mouth along with the oxygen hose I think.

No controls. N of 5, mortality within 1% of normal bounds.

Eh, it just seems like penetrating UV light ought to kill viruses on surface cells.
No idea how far into the lungs the effect could go.
The virus elsewhere in the body would also be unaffected.

I can't imagine N will ever get huge.
I'd personally have to be on death's door to agree to putting a suntan bed in my trachea.
If this idea really works, it will need some stunning results to make any kind of impact.


Similarly, there are no studies showing 6 feet social distancing or mask mandates or lockdowns making any kind of real difference for viruses.

But it seems like it ought to help, so we do it without the necessary human experiments establishing efficacy.
 
Last edited:
Just like there are no studies showing 6 feet social distancing or mask mandates or lockdowns making any kind of real difference for viruses.
It is not something I have really looked at, but from a quick search, published recently just in the nature stadle in the last few days:

Published: 03 May 2021
A numerical assessment of social distancing of preventing airborne transmission of COVID-19 during different breathing and coughing processes

Published: 22 April 2021
Modelling the potential impact of mask use in schools and society on COVID-19 control in the UK

Published: 15 April 2021
More than just a mental stressor: psychological value of social distancing in COVID-19 mitigation through increased risk perception—a preliminary study in China

Published: 04 March 2021
Masks and distancing during COVID-19: a causal framework for imputing value to public-health interventions
 

Joe attended a dinner with Hunter's business associates from Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan in April of 2015 months before firing the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter's company
 
Joe attended a dinner with Hunter's business associates from Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan in April of 2015 months before firing the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter's company

Dont worry Joe will pardon Hunter and Republicans will be perfectly fine with this.
Right ? RIGHT ?
 
Top Bottom