Sooooo.... Texas?

[forgetful]

People were advised to leave starting months ago, but had we started clear evacuations, the Afghan government that lasted 11 days would've crumbled far sooner. Had we pulled out equipment or military, it would've crumbled.

All the Monday morning generals seem to think there was some secret recipe for success, but our last president was calling for this before he was even elected and yet in 4 years he never tried to get out until it was clear he would leave the disaster on someone else's watch. At least we're out now.

This is what I can never understand. Trump directly negotiated the withdrawal of American troops with the Taliban. He deliberately left the Afghan government out of the negotiations. He bragged even a month ago, that the withdrawal was going to happen, because he made sure there was no way for Biden to stop it.

We now find out his administration deliberately slowed the process of our Afghan allies leaving the country, because they didn't want a bunch of Muslims entering the country.

Yet, we have a situation where many are now blaming universally the current president. Blame for the current situation is an amalgam of issues throughout our 20-year history there.

Here is the simple truth (well at least my opinion). Every president since this war started has boasted about how they would end this war. None did it, because it was going to be a mess no matter what. Like Vietnam, we put constraints on the military's terms of engagement that ensured this would never be a win, rather a money making operation for lobbyists. Neither party really cared about what was going on in Afghanistan, nor did they really care about the military, they just use them to pull on the heartstrings of America to get more votes. What they did care about was money.

To some extent, despite the mess, I give both Trump and Biden some credit for finally ending this thing. I wish we could get a joint statement from the two acknowledging that this needed to be done, it was going to be a mess, but now jointly we have ended this 20-year war.

[Lighthouse 84]

People were advised to leave starting months ago, but had we started clear evacuations, the Afghan government that lasted 11 days would've crumbled far sooner. Had we pulled out equipment or military, it would've crumbled.

All the Monday morning generals seem to think there was some secret recipe for success, but our last president was calling for this before he was even elected and yet in 4 years he never tried to get out until it was clear he would leave the disaster on someone else's watch. At least we're out now.

Again, i don’t forget a second think we shouldn’t have left, but I’m not the only one who thinks the way it was done was horrible:

Yeah, and there’s no way to reconcile those statements and then say there’s nothing we could have done. Obviously, one thing you could have done was get the intelligence right. There were clearly screwups here.- David Axelrod

There’s no way to hide it. The situation in Afghanistan is another shame on this admin. Withdrawal was never going to be easy but it didn’t need to come to this. The US must do everything in its power to help our partners & allies to safety & protect our national security.-Vicente Gonzalez

I am disappointed that the Biden administration clearly did not accurately assess the implications of a rapid U.S. withdrawal. -Bob Mendez

The consequences of our decision to abandon Afghanistan are now on full display for the world to see. It didn’t have to be this way. -Jim Langevin

Not everyone in the administration shared the commander in chief’s confidence. “I am absolutely appalled and literally horrified we left Americans there,” one administration official told POLITICO. “It was a hostage rescue of thousands of Americans in the guise of a NEO [noncombatant evacuation operations], and we have failed that no-fail mission.” Another White House official said that the mission isn’t accomplished if they left Americans behind.

Again, the point isn’t that Biden shouldn’t have gotten us out of Afghanistan.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

The intelligence community as well as the military let down and/or misled all 4 presidents who oversaw our efforts in Afghanistan, some of them likely to keep the money spigot flowing. Too bad Biden appears to be taking the fall for all of them. Plenty of blame to share among each administration.

Keeping track of the various tangents this thread has taken:



One last thing:

[MU82]

I don't agree with your point that only women should have an opinion on the subject regardless of the particulars from every situation.  Because "it's their body" they should be able to do whatever they want?  What if a female (or male) teacher decides to tape bombs to their body and take out a kindergarten classroom? 

Half the country believes you are killing a life whether it be 6 weeks or 24 weeks.  Completely disregarding that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  But again, you can't legislate this issue or calibrate laws that will satisfy virulent pro-lifers or force people to take personal responsibility.

Read Dickthedribbler's post again, and then read mine again, and then you'll get it.

[Jockey]

I'm not sure what we've seen to make us think any of the centrists would risk their own comfort to take a virtuous stand.

I almost agree with you GB. I have said many, many times that there is no bottom for how low Rs will sink. But I really think they are traveling down a road that will alienate all but the craziest. I realize that number might still be 20 million, but that is a to much of a minority to overcome. At least that is my hope.

[Jockey]

I'm starting to come around to the thinking of some of you guys. A woman should have unfettered control of her own body. I am now pro choice.

If a woman decides she doesn't want a vaccination by sticking a needle in her arm, she should have every right to decline.

And if a woman doesn't want to put a mask over here mouth and nose, then that is her constitutional right.

No man should force a woman to get a shot or wear a mask.
 
Can I get a witness?

For all of the handwringing here, the answer is so simple

All men get reversible vasectomies when they turn 18. Once they are able to prove they are responsible financially to have children, it is then reversed. If they fail to provide for the child, every citizen will have the right to turn them over to the police for prosecution with a minimum mandatory jail sentence.

[Galway Eagle]

OK. Good luck growing mass quantities of grapes, almonds, strawberries and lettuce in the Midwest.

Latest polls show otherwise. FWIW.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/elections-2021/scottish-independence

But again, the UK has a legal mechanism for that to happen. The U.S. does not.

Almonds are horrible for the environment the way we grow them. They require an insane amount of water and contribute to the drought. Good riddance.

Interesting numbers there, seems like people get cold feet when it's presented as a viable option

[GB Warrior]

California is the world's 6th biggest economy. Who is Mississippi going to vilify while simultaneously leaning on to subsidize the most federally dependant states in the country?

[Pakuni]

Almonds are horrible for the environment the way we grow them. They require an insane amount of water and contribute to the drought. Good riddance.

Wait until you hear about what cows do for the environment.

[GB Warrior]

Wait until you hear about what cows do for the environment.

Comedic break to keep this thread going

https://youtu.be/INmvdJNKdO8

[Galway Eagle]

Wait until you hear about what cows do for the environment.

pasture raised grass fed meat is not bad for the environment, it helps replace the vital nutrients in the soil.

[Pakuni]

pasture raised grass fed meat is not bad for the environment, it helps replace the vital nutrients in the soil.

The agriculture sector is one of the world’s biggest sources of climate-altering gases, the vast majority of which come from meat and dairy production. If cows were their own country, they would be the third-biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.


A 2018 study found that about 12.4 million acres of forest — the equivalent of more than five Yellowstone National Parks — are cut down each year to clear room for industrial agriculture. A whopping 30 percent of Earth’s ice-free land mass is used as pasture for livestock.
Here, again, cows are a major culprit. Because ruminants have slower growth and reproduction rates than other animals, they require more resources to produce something a person can eat. Beef requires about twice as much land per gram of protein as chicken and pork, and 20 times as much land as the equivalent amount of protein from beans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2019/11/18/are-my-hamburgers-hurting-planet/

To be clear, I love me a good burger and steak and in no way want to be rid of the beef industry. But if environmental impact is going to be your standard for which agricultural products should go or stay, beef and dairy are by far at the top of the "go" list. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I eat cows so they stop producing methane.

[real chili 83]

We should probably ban Real Chili too, eh?

[Galway Eagle]

The agriculture sector is one of the world’s biggest sources of climate-altering gases, the vast majority of which come from meat and dairy production. If cows were their own country, they would be the third-biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.


A 2018 study found that about 12.4 million acres of forest — the equivalent of more than five Yellowstone National Parks — are cut down each year to clear room for industrial agriculture. A whopping 30 percent of Earth’s ice-free land mass is used as pasture for livestock.
Here, again, cows are a major culprit. Because ruminants have slower growth and reproduction rates than other animals, they require more resources to produce something a person can eat. Beef requires about twice as much land per gram of protein as chicken and pork, and 20 times as much land as the equivalent amount of protein from beans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2019/11/18/are-my-hamburgers-hurting-planet/

To be clear, I love me a good burger and steak and in no way want to be rid of the beef industry. But if environmental impact is going to be your standard for which agricultural products should go or stay, beef and dairy are by far at the top of the "go" list.

I'm confused here.

Me: almonds are awful for the environment

You: COWS!

Me: actually there's a method of raising them where they aren't bad

You: Here's an article that groups together all methods of raising cows ignoring that I'm specifically talking about one method.

It's basically like if you responded by saying "well I get naturally growing almonds from their native habitat" and I responded with an article about how almonds in California are terrible. See how that wouldn't be relevant?

[jesmu84]

Any commentary/opinion on the afghan withdrawal from anyone who worked in previous administrations, has ties to military-industrial profits or lobbying efforts or worked in intelligence under previous administrations should be immediately ignored.

[Pakuni]

I'm confused here.

Me: almonds are awful for the environment

You: COWS!

Me: actually there's a method of raising them where they aren't bad

Ah, I didn't realize you were trying to argue that shifting to grass-fed beef would be good for the environment. You'd be wrong.

"A Harvard report published July 2018 in the journal Environmental Research Letters  found that shifting U.S. beef production to exclusively grass-fed, pastured systems would require 30% more cattle just to keep up with current demand and production levels, and that the average methane footprint per unit of beef produced would increase by 43% due to the slower growth rates and higher methane conversion rates of grass-fed cattle. This would increase the U.S.’s total methane emissions by approximately 8%, according to the researchers."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

[Galway Eagle]

Ah, I didn't realize you were trying to argue that shifting to grass-fed beef would be good for the environment. You'd be wrong.

"A Harvard report published July 2018 in the journal Environmental Research Letters  found that shifting U.S. beef production to exclusively grass-fed, pastured systems would require 30% more cattle just to keep up with current demand and production levels, and that the average methane footprint per unit of beef produced would increase by 43% due to the slower growth rates and higher methane conversion rates of grass-fed cattle. This would increase the U.S.’s total methane emissions by approximately 8%, according to the researchers."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

Not definitive.

https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/why-go-organic-grass-fed-and-pasture-raised/

Environmental Benefits

Well-managed grazing and grass-fed operations are better for the environment. They use fewer energy-intensive inputs and, by regularly moving animals to fresh pasture and keeping them away from streambeds, they spread the manure more evenly and improve the quality and quantity of forage growth. This helps to conserve soil, reduce erosion and water pollution, increase carbon sequestration and preserve biodiversity and wildlife (Johnson 2002, FAO 2009, Pelletier 2010). Organic feed production and grazing practices are also better for the environment. They reduce fertilizer and pesticide runoff into waterways, and the use of compost, cover-cropping and rotational grazing helps build healthy, productive and water-conserving soils. Organic methods also enhance pest and weed resistance without the use of chemicals and ultimately foster greater resiliency in the face of extreme weather and climate change.

Climate Impact

There are few definitive studies of the net amount of greenhouse gas emissions from grass-fed versus confined-feedlot, grain-fed meat. Since pasture-raised cattle gain weight more slowly than grain-fed animals (an average of 25 percent slower in one recent study (Gurian-Sherman 2011), those animals take longer to reach slaughter weight and consequently emit more methane and nitrous oxide. Confined cattle gain weight much more quickly on their high-starch corn feed.

These higher emissions may be offset, however, by the carbon sequestration benefits that well-managed pasture systems can provide (Pelletier 2010). Rotational grazing and the application of organic soil treatments can have a significant impact on building up soil carbon in pastureland (Follet 2001, Conant 2001). Far fewer energy-intensive inputs are used in grass-fed beef production.

The climate impact of grass-fed animals depends on factors that vary greatly from one production system to another. They include: average weight gain and quality of forage (the slower the animals gain weight, the more methane they emit); the rate of soil carbon sequestration; and crowding (greater density of animals means more concentrated manure deposits and higher methane and nitrous oxide emissions).

Much more research is needed to determine the comparative climate impact of pasture-based versus confined feedlot systems.

[Pakuni]

Not definitive.

https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/why-go-organic-grass-fed-and-pasture-raised/

So as not to beat this dead cow any longer, I'll just point out that it appears the information in your link - saying there are no definitive studies and more research is needed - seems to pre-date the study I linked.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Half the country believes you are killing a life whether it be 6 weeks or 24 weeks. 

Half the country does not believe this. Hell, at this point I'm not certain that 50% of American Christians believe this.

I see this language thrown around a lot with social issues. Half this country doesn't support gay marriage. Half this country doesn't support gun control. Half this country doesn't support the BLM movement (not the organization). Half this country doesn't believe in mask mandates or vaccines. None of these are true. The social liberals make up well over half of this country. There is just a very vocal and very well resourced minority that has ensured that progress is slowed on these topic areas and the will of the people is not realized.

[brewcity77]

Half the country does not believe this. Hell, at this point I'm not certain that 50% of American Christians believe this.

It's probably closer to 30% of the country, and even then, most of those still prefer exceptions for rape & incest. It's truly amazing how far this issue has gotten considering the vast majority support for the other side.

[GB Warrior]

Half the country does not believe this. Hell, at this point I'm not certain that 50% of American Christians believe this.

I see this language thrown around a lot with social issues. Half this country doesn't support gay marriage. Half this country doesn't support gun control. Half this country doesn't support the BLM movement (not the organization). Half this country doesn't believe in mask mandates or vaccines. None of these are true. The social liberals make up well over half of this country. There is just a very vocal and very well resourced minority that has ensured that progress is slowed on these topic areas and the will of the people is not realized.

To boot, more than half of the people who DO believe this do not have uteruses and thus I give even less credence to their thoughts

[Warriors4ever]

All the men opining about abortion are causing me me to make my first donation to Planned Parenthood. I should have done it in the name of MU Scoop.

[MU82]

It's probably closer to 30% of the country, and even then, most of those still prefer exceptions for rape & incest. It's truly amazing how far this issue has gotten considering the vast majority support for the other side.

Those on the wrong side of this issue have political clout, scream the loudest and are the most cunning about getting their way. I mean, the Texas law was a pretty smart work-around -- even if unconstitutional -- and several similarly fascist-run states are planning to craft similar legislation.

I already have read a few articles about work-arounds that those opposed to this law could have at their disposal. This isn't finished yet ... although it will wreak havoc on Texas women who want abortions now.

[Jockey]

Those on the wrong side of this issue have political clout, scream the loudest and are the most cunning about getting their way. I mean, the Texas law was a pretty smart work-around -- even if unconstitutional -- and several similarly fascist-run states are planning to craft similar legislation.

I already have read a few articles about work-arounds that those opposed to this law could have at their disposal. This isn't finished yet ... although it will wreak havoc on Texas women who want abortions now.

The minority make the rules now. Only in American democracy.