It's okay to use proper pronunciation again. When the GOP is in charge, it's a sign of one's superiority to not use proper pronunciation, but make everything sound like an American word.
Insisting on singularly correct pronunciations is the type of thinking that gets powerful nations trapped in Afghanistan.
Alternatively, Americans who think they know better than the inhabitants how to pronounce their place names are on the slippery slope to thinking they know better than the inhabitants how to run their country.
Alternatively, Americans who think they know better than the inhabitants how to pronounce their place names are on the slippery slope to thinking they know better than the inhabitants how to run their country.
True, I suppose, in the rare, monoglot places where inhabitants all pronounce the name the same.
I used to have some respect for Engel. No more. This is a blindingly stupid take.
Biden says US in constant contact with Taliban to get safe passage to airport. So, US asking former enemy, the Taliban, to please allow us to get our people out while they take the country.
Alternatively, Americans who think they know better than the inhabitants how to pronounce their place names are on the slippery slope to thinking they know better than the inhabitants how to run their country.
True, I suppose, in the rare, monoglot places where inhabitants all pronounce the name the same.
This is a hill which you can have, if it means that much to you.
Not important, which is why there was banter, but the back-and-forth pronunciations (Qatar, too) interest me. What are the origins? What are the domestic patterns? What is leading government officials, news organizations or, say, FIFA to favor one over the other? (It’s not in the interest of reporters like CNN’s Clarissa Ward to alienate her sources or lose local credibility by imposing her own ideas of what’s correct, or by allowing the stateside bosses to impose theirs.) That’s the curiosity I was pursuing this afternoon when idle diversion called. All done.
It's best to see how things play out before drawing any conclusions.
So you wouldn't know it from the above-the-fold US media coverage but basically all the top leaders of the US-backed govt are already meeting w/negotiating w/ the Taliban and forming the next govt. https://t.co/q9eGO7jw73 via @TPM
New Jersey stands ready to provide safe harbor, support, stability, and peace to Afghan refugees.
Today I sent a letter to @potus making it clear that we welcome these brave individuals and their families to the Garden State. pic.twitter.com/dJRxUCvngm
Find me a news director going wall to wall on Our Abandonment of Our Afghan Friends this week who devoted 30 seconds of airtime to the destruction of the visa system the Afghans need while it was happening over the past few years
I've yet to hear anyone except Maddow (I think) mention what Trump did to the SIV program. It's only come to the fore (a bit) because of the recent story from a former Pence aide about how Steven Miller worked to successfully disable the program.
We'll see how the media picks this up.
Biden has clearly decided not to blame Trump directly for any of this debacle, but maybe they should be leaking stuff about it, to at least get it into the news cycles a bit.
I got this tweet from this blog post, which has in worth reading. excerpt below
As Judd Legum writes at Popular Information, big outlets have almost exclusively turned to critics of the Afghanistan withdrawal in their coverage, and in virtually every case people who supported the invasion and occupation. A public relations specialist told Popular Information that TV bookers were straight-up refusing to have anyone on who supports the decision to withdraw.
I've yet to hear anyone except Maddow (I think) mention what Trump did to the SIV program. It's only come to the fore (a bit) because of the recent story from a former Pence aide about how Steven Miller worked to successfully disable the program.
We'll see how the media picks this up.
Biden has clearly decided not to blame Trump directly for any of this debacle, but maybe they should be leaking stuff about it, to at least get it into the news cycles a bit.
I got this tweet from this blog post, which has in worth reading. excerpt below
As Judd Legum writes at Popular Information, big outlets have almost exclusively turned to critics of the Afghanistan withdrawal in their coverage, and in virtually every case people who supported the invasion and occupation. A public relations specialist told Popular Information that TV bookers were straight-up refusing to have anyone on who supports the decision to withdraw.
doing this would entail admitting their organizations were wrong in the first place when they were almost unanimously behind the invasion. I think we've all come to realize that it's a rare person who will look back and admit they were wrong, particularly in this case. Because not only were the big news orgs wrong about invading, they also bear some responsibility for selling it to the public. So admitting being wrong, and taking at least a bit of the responsibility? That's an exceptionally rare thing for anyone in the public eye to do.
I've yet to hear anyone except Maddow (I think) mention what Trump did to the SIV program. It's only come to the fore (a bit) because of the recent story from a former Pence aide about how Steven Miller worked to successfully disable the program.
We'll see how the media picks this up.
Example: Rachel Maddow on June 29, 2021 -
There are thousands of Afghan special immigrant visa applications that are backlogged. The need to fix that slow process in Congress, though, is something that both sides of the aisle seem to be agreeing on, mostly.
There`s a little worry on this front when last week Senator Rand Paul argued that the U.S. should not speed up the visa process for Afghans who are now facing this imminent danger because of our departure. He said those Afghans should stay behind.
He said, quote, you can say the people in Afghanistan helped us, but you can also say we helped liberate them as well. That`s what he a said, so they should be left to fend for themselves regardless of any promises we made to them.
Sadly, I predict mtierney and her ilk will prove the Governor wrong. Its one thing to criticize Biden's handling of a situation, its another thing entirely to welcome brown people into your own community. To say nothing of Muslims.
Sadly, I predict mtierney and her ilk will prove the Governor wrong. Its one thing to criticize Biden's handling of a situation, its another thing entirely to welcome brown people into your own community. To say nothing of Muslims.
Cue the theme song for "The War on Christianity".
Wrong in what way? Murphy said that the State of New Jersey will welcome the Refugees. That doesn't mean everyone. Has the Republican Candidate for Governor expressed an opinion?
Wrong in what way? Murphy said that the State of New Jersey will welcome the Refugees. That doesn't mean everyone. Has the Republican Candidate for Governor expressed an opinion?
I just meant that there are plenty of people in NJ who will make them feel unwelcome. I have no doubt that the state, as an institution, will do its best to accommodate the new Americans. Murphy was speaking for himself and other decent people. Sadly, NJ has plenty of people who are far from decent. One of them trolls these very pages,
This is wishful thinking, bordering on the fantastical, but given the immense material and logistical capabilities of the United States, I wish those resources could be focused for things like evacuations. The US military is very well resourced and competent when properly directed. When it launches an operation, the level of planning and ability to adapt to quickly changing adversarial circumstances is truly impressive. What comes after... generally not so much, but I'd argue that's often because the military is the wrong tool for the job. Invade a country on the other side of the world and remove its government? Done, with great dispatch. Transform that country into something resembling a post-war European democracy? Thats... not really something a military can do.
I actually think our high level of military effectiveness is part of why we keep making these kinds of mistakes. It's an institutional version of the halo effect. But high competence in one area doesn't automatically translate to another.
Making territory physically secure for long enough for large numbers of people and equipment to evacuate though? That's firmly within the core capabilities of our military, and witnessing the chaos in Kabul what I'm seeing is evidence that we didn't plan this out as a real mission. And it seems we very seldom do -- plenty of "shock and awe" to get in, but clearly nowhere near as much thought and planning for getting out.
I don't really care about Republican criticism here. Half of that is folks who'd have us stay in Afghanistan forever, the other half just lazy hyperpartisans who don't have any core beliefs beyond opposing whatever Democrats are doing. And it's true that an operation on the scale of leaving Afghanistan successfully implies a timeline that implicates the Trump admin heavily in the failure here. Still, it would be nice to see a cultural shift in our foreign policy that places as much emphasis on concluding as it does with starting, though I'm not holding my breath.
This is wishful thinking, bordering on the fantastical, but given the immense material and logistical capabilities of the United States, I wish those resources could be focused for things like evacuations. The US military is very well resourced and competent when properly directed. When it launches an operation, the level of planning and ability to adapt to quickly changing adversarial circumstances is truly impressive. What comes after... generally not so much, but I'd argue that's often because the military is the wrong tool for the job. Invade a country on the other side of the world and remove its government? Done, with great dispatch. Transform that country into something resembling a post-war European democracy? Thats... not really something a military can do.
I actually think our high level of military effectiveness is part of why we keep making these kinds of mistakes. It's an institutional version of the halo effect. But high competence in one area doesn't automatically translate to another.
Making territory physically secure for long enough for large numbers of people and equipment to evacuate though? That's firmly within the core capabilities of our military, and witnessing the chaos in Kabul what I'm seeing is evidence that we didn't plan this out as a real mission. And it seems we very seldom do -- plenty of "shock and awe" to get in, but clearly nowhere near as much thought and planning for getting out.
I don't really care about Republican criticism here. Half of that is folks who'd have us stay in Afghanistan forever, the other half just lazy hyperpartisans who don't have any core beliefs beyond opposing whatever Democrats are doing. And it's true that an operation on the scale of leaving Afghanistan successfully implies a timeline that implicates the Trump admin heavily in the failure here. Still, it would be nice to see a cultural shift in our foreign policy that places as much emphasis on concluding as it does with starting, though I'm not holding my breath.
Not sure what you're criticizing here. After a couple of days of confusion, we've evacuated almost 40-50k people (depending on whose number you get), and are continuing to move thousands of people a day. Do you think we could be doing more?
This is wishful thinking, bordering on the fantastical, but given the immense material and logistical capabilities of the United States, I wish those resources could be focused for things like evacuations. The US military is very well resourced and competent when properly directed. When it launches an operation, the level of planning and ability to adapt to quickly changing adversarial circumstances is truly impressive. What comes after... generally not so much, but I'd argue that's often because the military is the wrong tool for the job. Invade a country on the other side of the world and remove its government? Done, with great dispatch. Transform that country into something resembling a post-war European democracy? Thats... not really something a military can do.
I actually think our high level of military effectiveness is part of why we keep making these kinds of mistakes. It's an institutional version of the halo effect. But high competence in one area doesn't automatically translate to another.
Making territory physically secure for long enough for large numbers of people and equipment to evacuate though? That's firmly within the core capabilities of our military, and witnessing the chaos in Kabul what I'm seeing is evidence that we didn't plan this out as a real mission. And it seems we very seldom do -- plenty of "shock and awe" to get in, but clearly nowhere near as much thought and planning for getting out.
I don't really care about Republican criticism here. Half of that is folks who'd have us stay in Afghanistan forever, the other half just lazy hyperpartisans who don't have any core beliefs beyond opposing whatever Democrats are doing. And it's true that an operation on the scale of leaving Afghanistan successfully implies a timeline that implicates the Trump admin heavily in the failure here. Still, it would be nice to see a cultural shift in our foreign policy that places as much emphasis on concluding as it does with starting, though I'm not holding my breath.
Not sure what you're criticizing here. After a couple of days of confusion, we've evacuated almost 40-50k people (depending on whose number you get), and are continuing to move thousands of people a day. Do you think we could be doing more?
He's criticizing our inability to plan and execute an operation beyond the initial military phase.
He's criticizing our overuse of the military for nation-building exercises, as they are ill-suited to the task.
Not sure what you're criticizing here. After a couple of days of confusion, we've evacuated almost 40-50k people (depending on whose number you get), and are continuing to move thousands of people a day. Do you think we could be doing more?
He's criticizing our inability to plan and execute an operation beyond the initial military phase.
He's criticizing our overuse of the military for nation-building exercises, as they are ill-suited to the task.
Always has been kahble.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kabul