Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Look I'm sorry if the facts trigger you guys, but them's the breaks

---

You have been divorced from facts for the last half decade.

---

HuMcK said:

---

"at least our friends would be out before it all hit the fan"

That's actually the one thing we can be certain would not have happened. The Trump admin put the entire Afghan SIV process on ice for years, even after a court order in 2019 telling them to stop stonewalling it (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-broke-law-visa-delays-afghans-iraqis-who-worked-n1057846), their 2020 numbers were down even further. Trump was fully prepared and planning to leave all of those people behind without a second thought. Pence's NatSec advisor Olivia Troye called them out on it after she left the admin, saying Trump put anti-immigration advocate Steven Miller in charge of the process to deliberately sabotage it.

Biden's delay of withdrawal from May to September was actually to try and work through that built up backlog.

---

HuMcK said:

---

"Donald Trump was not President when we pulled out of Afghanistan. Joe Biden was."

Ok. Joe Biden was not President when we surrendered to the Taliban, set the pullout date, and stopped processing Afghan ally visas entirely. Donald Trump was.

---

HuMcK said:

---

Look I'm sorry if the facts trigger you guys, but them's the breaks

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Look I'm sorry if the facts trigger you guys, but them's the breaks

---

The only fact is here is that biden is president. He decided to go with the pull out. He ****ed it all up.

---

Hunter was born in 1970. Looks like he pulled out about 52 years too late.

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Look I'm sorry if the facts trigger you guys, but them's the breaks

---

The only fact is here is that biden is president. He decided to go with the pull out. He ****ed it all up.

---

Hunter was born in 1970. Looks like he pulled out about 52 years too late.

---

HuMcK said:

---

That was Stephen Miller's group, the same ones that got no visas processed in 2020. It was the Trump admin's response to the court order in 2019. It was less than useless, and deserved to be disbanded.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I'm pretty happy to have the traitor out of office. There's probably about 100k Afghans who otherwise would have never gotten out that are pretty happy about it to.

---

traitor still in office.. a bunch of them in washington lining their own pockets at the expense of the American people

---

HuMcK said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I'm pretty happy to have the traitor out of office. There's probably about 100k Afghans who otherwise would have never gotten out that are pretty happy about it to.

---

traitor still in office.. a bunch of them in washington lining their own pockets at the expense of the American people

---

Well we voted out the one who repeatedly spent taxpayer dollars on his own business for every vacation, which accounted for a stunningly high 1/4 of his days in office, so that's positive momentum.

---

Innovation is more about learning from failure than it is about succeeding at something new. Here’s a piece about how we can innovate from failure. https://t.co/0co48GQQiI

— Efosa Ojomo (@EfosaOjomo) October 14, 2021

Quote:

---

An Afghan volleyball player on the girls' national team was beheaded by the Taliban with gruesome photos of her severed head posted on social media, according to her coach.

Mahjabin Hakimi, one of the best players in the Kabul Municipality Volleyball Club, was slaughtered in the capital city of Kabul as troops searched for female sports players, her coach told the Persian Independent.

She was killed earlier this month, but her death remained mostly hidden because her family had been threatened not to talk, claimed the coach, using a pseudonym, Suraya Afzali, due to safety fears.

Images of Hakimi's severed neck were published on Afghan social media, according to the paper, which did not say how old she was.

---

Quote:

---

Only two players from the Afghan women's national volleyball team, which was established in 1978, were able to leave the country prior to the takeover.

Female athletes left in Afghanistan, especially members of the Afghan women's national volleyball team who have competed in foreign and domestic competitions as well as appeared in media programs, are under serious threat, Afzali said.

"All the players on the volleyball team and the rest of the women athletes are in a bad situation and in despair and fear," the coach was quoted as saying.

---

Quote:

---

But there was one development that had not been expected, and was not tolerable: the large and growing incidence of sexual assaults committed by refugees against local women. These were not of the cultural-misunderstanding-date-rape sort, but were vicious, no-preamble attacks on random girls and women, often committed by gangs or packs of young men. At first, the incidents were downplayed or hushed upno one wanted to provide the right wing with fodder for nationalist agitation, and the hope was that these were isolated instances caused by a small problem group of outliers. As the incidents increased, and because many of them took place in public or because the public became involved either in stopping the attack or in aiding the victim afterwards, and because the courts began issuing sentences as the cases came to trial, the matter could no longer be swept under the carpet of political correctness. And with the official acknowledgment and public reporting, a weird and puzzling footnote emerged. Most of the assaults were being committed by refugees of one particular nationality: by Afghans.

---

BREAKING: Missoula Rape Suspect is an Afghan Refugee https://t.co/NcrrIeEVK1 #MTPol #MTNews #Afghanistan #Refugees

— Aaron Flint (@aaronflint) October 21, 2021

The State Department can’t just say off the record to Congressional staff that they’ve been lying from day one about the number of American citizens they stranded in Afghanistan. https://t.co/QjEq7eGsLn

— Rep. Darrell Issa (@repdarrellissa) October 22, 2021

Quote:

---

Consider the following thought experiment: Moved by the plight of desperate earthquake victims, you volunteer to work as a relief worker in Haiti. After two weeks, you're ready to go home. Unfortunately, when you arrive at the airport, customs officials tell you that you're forbidden to enter the United States.

You go to the American consulate to demand an explanation. But the official response is simply, "The United States does not have to explain itself to you." You don't have to be a libertarian to admit that this seems like a monstrous injustice. The entire ideological menagerie liberals, conservatives, moderates, socialists, and libertarians would defend your right to move from Haiti to the United States. What's so bad about restricting your migration? Most obviously, because life in Haiti is terrible. If the American government denies you permission to return, you'll live in dire poverty, die sooner, live under a brutal, corrupt regime, and be cut off from most of the people you want to associate with. Hunger, danger, oppression, isolation: condemning you to even one seems wrong.

Which raises a serious question: if you had been born in Haiti, would denying you permission to enter the United States be any less wrong? This thought experiment hardly proves that people have an absolute right of free migration. After all, many things that seem wrong on the surface turn out to be morally justified. Suppose you knock me unconscious, then slice me open with a knife. This is normally wrong. But if you're performing surgery required to save my life, and I gave my informed consent, then your action is not just morally permissible, but praiseworthy.

Nevertheless, my thought experiment does establish one weak conclusion: immigration restrictions seem wrong on the surface. To justifiably restrict migration, you need to overcome the moral presumption in favor of open borders (Huemer 2010). How would one go about overcoming this presumption? For starters, you must show that the evils of free immigration are fairly severe. Immigration restrictions trap many millions in Third World misery. Economists' consensus estimate is that open borders would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty (Clemens 2011). The injustice and harm that immigration restrictions prevent has to be at least comparable to the injustice and harm that immigration restrictions impose.

---

jupiter said:

---

Quote:

---

Consider the following thought experiment: Moved by the plight of desperate earthquake victims, you volunteer to work as a relief worker in Haiti. After two weeks, you're ready to go home. Unfortunately, when you arrive at the airport, customs officials tell you that you're forbidden to enter the United States.

You go to the American consulate to demand an explanation. But the official response is simply, "The United States does not have to explain itself to you." You don't have to be a libertarian to admit that this seems like a monstrous injustice. The entire ideological menagerie liberals, conservatives, moderates, socialists, and libertarians would defend your right to move from Haiti to the United States. What's so bad about restricting your migration? Most obviously, because life in Haiti is terrible. If the American government denies you permission to return, you'll live in dire poverty, die sooner, live under a brutal, corrupt regime, and be cut off from most of the people you want to associate with. Hunger, danger, oppression, isolation: condemning you to even one seems wrong.

Which raises a serious question: if you had been born in Haiti, would denying you permission to enter the United States be any less wrong? This thought experiment hardly proves that people have an absolute right of free migration. After all, many things that seem wrong on the surface turn out to be morally justified. Suppose you knock me unconscious, then slice me open with a knife. This is normally wrong. But if you're performing surgery required to save my life, and I gave my informed consent, then your action is not just morally permissible, but praiseworthy.

Nevertheless, my thought experiment does establish one weak conclusion: immigration restrictions seem wrong on the surface. To justifiably restrict migration, you need to overcome the moral presumption in favor of open borders (Huemer 2010). How would one go about overcoming this presumption? For starters, you must show that the evils of free immigration are fairly severe. Immigration restrictions trap many millions in Third World misery. Economists' consensus estimate is that open borders would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty (Clemens 2011). The injustice and harm that immigration restrictions prevent has to be at least comparable to the injustice and harm that immigration restrictions impose.

---

cj32n1-2.pdf (cato.org)


I guess it's not fun for being on the wrong side of America's immigration system

---

jupiter said:

---

Quote:

---

Consider the following thought experiment: Moved by the plight of desperate earthquake victims, you volunteer to work as a relief worker in Haiti. After two weeks, you're ready to go home. Unfortunately, when you arrive at the airport, customs officials tell you that you're forbidden to enter the United States.

You go to the American consulate to demand an explanation. But the official response is simply, "The United States does not have to explain itself to you." You don't have to be a libertarian to admit that this seems like a monstrous injustice. The entire ideological menagerie liberals, conservatives, moderates, socialists, and libertarians would defend your right to move from Haiti to the United States. What's so bad about restricting your migration? Most obviously, because life in Haiti is terrible. If the American government denies you permission to return, you'll live in dire poverty, die sooner, live under a brutal, corrupt regime, and be cut off from most of the people you want to associate with. Hunger, danger, oppression, isolation: condemning you to even one seems wrong.

Which raises a serious question: if you had been born in Haiti, would denying you permission to enter the United States be any less wrong? This thought experiment hardly proves that people have an absolute right of free migration. After all, many things that seem wrong on the surface turn out to be morally justified. Suppose you knock me unconscious, then slice me open with a knife. This is normally wrong. But if you're performing surgery required to save my life, and I gave my informed consent, then your action is not just morally permissible, but praiseworthy.

Nevertheless, my thought experiment does establish one weak conclusion: immigration restrictions seem wrong on the surface. To justifiably restrict migration, you need to overcome the moral presumption in favor of open borders (Huemer 2010). How would one go about overcoming this presumption? For starters, you must show that the evils of free immigration are fairly severe. Immigration restrictions trap many millions in Third World misery. Economists' consensus estimate is that open borders would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty (Clemens 2011). The injustice and harm that immigration restrictions prevent has to be at least comparable to the injustice and harm that immigration restrictions impose.

---

cj32n1-2.pdf (cato.org)


I guess it's not fun for being on the wrong side of America's immigration system

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

"Donald Trump was not President when we pulled out of Afghanistan. Joe Biden was."

Ok. Joe Biden was not President when we surrendered to the Taliban, set the pullout date, and stopped processing Afghan ally visas entirely. Donald Trump was.

---

I never thought in my lifetime that I would ever utter the words, "My God I miss Barack Obama!" I am there.

---

Quote:

---

RAND researchers sought to better understand the nature and effectiveness of contributions that Baltic civilians could make to a resistance campaign during a notional occupation. In this report, using an original analytical framework, the authors examine historic episodes of Baltic armed resistance from 1940 to 1955 and unarmed resistance from 1955 to 1991. Drawing from this analysis, the authors examine more-recent plans and policies to prepare Baltic populations for crises and consider the contributions that Baltic civilians could make during an occupation scenario by imposing costs on an adversary, securing external support, denying an occupier's political and economic consolidation, reducing an occupier's capacity for repression, and maintaining and expanding popular support for resistance. Finally, the authors present recommendations for how allies and partners can support the Baltic countries in strengthening civilian capacity for resilience and resistance.

---

After nearly three months in limbo in a Tajik sanitorium, a group of 191 Afghans, many U.S.-trained pilots, have been flown out of the region.https://t.co/OTzfJmTd7D

— The Diplomat (@Diplomat_APAC) November 10, 2021

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Never Forgive. Never Forget.

---

HuMcK said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Never Forgive. Never Forget.

---

Funny you should mention that, because I'm pretty sure y'all forgot some things, or just ignored them...
https://twitter.com/TitanTOC/status/1461364204632375323?t=CvMFYS8s_G0P5a1Ure4JQg&s=19

---