I didn't say that, but it wouldn't be you if you didn't translate whatever I post into some BS. 

Half of the money is already being released as "humanitarian aid in Afghanistan", why can't 100% be released for humanitarian aid? Spare me.  

Oh so very complex, I already proposed a better solution, see above. It is an absolutely better answer than whatever Biden cooked up. 

Hence, why I was asking for clarification... 

Anyways, as previously stated, about $0.5bn of the money that was frozen was from private banks (including personal funds). As such, this will be paid back to the people 7 times over through the Humanitarian aid included from this funding. Additionally, funding streams exist outside of this money. The US has bookmarked another roughly $0.8bn in our own funds for Afghanistan since October 2021.

I agree that the people of Afghanistan shouldn't be punished for the collapse of their government, but it seems that their direct losses here are being paid back multiple times over in a manner that you already agree to.

The courts are the ones who are deciding the money goes to the 9/11 victims all of it, not the Biden admin.  Its actually the Biden Admin that wants to split it. Remember that its the lawyers for the 9/11 victims who are trying to claim 100% of that money because they were award 7 billion in damages in 2012.  There is a context you seem to be missing here.

Now lets address your solution, how will that money ever reach the citizens.  This is the real complexity of the situation.  Opening the vaults goes 100% to the Taliban.  Trying to distribute the money how is that going to work.  Even purchasing food, medicine and so forth, how is that going to reach the citizens.  No matter how you slice it, all will go to the Taliban.  You cannot distribute, give or do anything in Afghanistan without going through the Taliban and you can be sure all efforts will directly go to the military first before anything sees the light of day to the citizens.  Lets not act like this is the first rodeo in trying to give aid to countries where their leaders control everything.  We already know how exactly this will go.  Everything will be seized by the controlling power and anything of value will be sold for money, drugs, guns or all of the above.

In realistic terms, this money will never get into the hands of the citizens now that the Taliban is back in control and the Taliban is never going anywhere anytime soon, no matter the conditions in the country.  The US will absolutely not release the money back into the Taliban hands unless they come to the table with the conditions we have set and the Taliban will never agree to those terms at least probably not within our lifetime.  So the question still remains, what happens to this money.  If the courts award the total sum to the 9/11 victims then its just gone.  If the courts does not award the money then it just stays for however long it takes for someone to decide to spend it.  In my view point no matter how this will end, the citizens of Afghanistan will never see this money, unless its their descendants in a very distant future.

I don't get how you have objections to my proposal but not Biden's.... I am simply taking Biden's proposal and tweaking it. Why are you not telling Biden that the half of the money he's dedicating to the Afghani people isn't getting into the hands of the citizens? Why do you only have a problem with the half I want to dedicate for Afghanistan but not Biden's?

Moreover, Biden has more power in this matter than you'd like to pretend. If he has already challenged the courts by splitting the money between Americans and Afghanistan, why are you pretending that he's toothless and have no say in the matter? 

Quick clarification, he has not split the money, he requested that the courts allow the money to be split. It remains to be seen whether they will allow this. Generally, a middle ground compromise approach tends to be more likely to the succeed than an all-or-nothing approach. 

As for Mach's complaints, it is undeniable that releasing any money to Afghanistan - even through humanitarian channels - will provide some benefit to the Taliban, but it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that some amount of benefit will reach the people. It may not be used to create a stable, long term financial system, but expecting some degree of short term benefit seems reasonable to me. 

Gotta admit that while I've never been the biggest fan of Brexit, nonetheless I too like Boris Johnson better than Joe Biden for the reasons you point out and more. There's such a dearth of serious economic populism in the U.S. today that it's ridiculous. I mean it's ridiculous when our liberals are being outflanked on the left by the conservatives of other countries when it comes to just simply caring about the well-being of working people.

As to what the Biden ideology is, I note that polling typically shows a difference between how Democrats perceive Biden and how the rest of the public does. Most Democrats (especially the liberals and progressives) view him as a moderate, while everyone else (including the self-described moderates) views him as a liberal. So I guess the bottom line is that nobody wants to be identified too closely with the current U.S. president. Whatever they are, he can't be. ...Well perhaps the best way of getting at the truth is then to observe who's the most apt to approve of Biden's job performance overall, and that would be self-described liberal Democrats, which suggests that their worldview (especially that of the more generic, establishment types) has the most in common with his. But liberalism is also a relative concept and is defined in some ways more modestly here in the U.S. than in the UK.

That said, there are some areas in which Biden does indeed seem more left wing that Boris Johnson (e.g. border policy, social policy often, crime) and these are the areas on which he polls the worst. Which might explain the prevailing public perception that he's "too liberal".

Who said I had an objection to your proposal.  I am stating that giving all the money to humanitarian services sounds nice and all but reality is that getting the services to the people is something entirely different.  How do you get the money and the service to the people if you have to go through the government first.  I would love for people to answer this situation besides just going to whole high ground.  So lets say that 15 % of what you do make it to the people but 85% goes toward the Taliban and any group he likes to support to harm western nations and build up his base in the area.  Would you still go your route. 

What always makes these decisions more complex then just pure emotion is that there is a price no matter what you do.  We can sit on the sidelines and judge but when you are the one making the decisions and are privy to way more info than the public, its not just a black and white situation.  Each decision made will have some cost.

Also one detail that Sundin mentioned that I believe need to be stated again, the majority of the money is not from the Afgan people but money we have given to the nation during the 20 years we occupied the country.  So technically the majority of the money is from the US and other international donations.  The money that actually come from the citizens is less then a Billion from what I have gathered.  The US has contributed over 800 billion to Afghanistan over the 20 years, and the money that was frozen is majority from the US.  So if we are looking at this correctly, Biden plan actually gives the Afgan people more than what they invested.  

Either way, I find this situation interesting more on the info that is delivered from different sources then the actual money plight.  As I read different sites its more interesting on the details that is left out then what is said.

I actually totally disagree with this view point.  The people that are saying that Biden is a liberal are conservatives because it fits their narrative when selling Biden as the same as AOC.  There is no one who has actually ever watched Biden career has every thought of him as a liberal.  You are confusing political gamesmanship and twisting it to fit your opinion.  Politics is always about the message not always about the truth.

*shrugs*

I'm just looking at poll data. There has been a shift therein over time on this subject since Biden took office, I've observed. Earlier on, when he was still a popular president, the balance of Americans described him as a moderate to pollsters. In more recent months though, since his poll numbers have turned upside down, more people than not have come to view him as a liberal instead. The surveys that most align with Biden's current polling average (the ones showing him in the neighborhood of 13 to 15% underwater) have the self-described moderates too most often identifying Biden as a liberal, in addition to the conservatives, and also find that about twice as many Americans overall consider Biden a liberal as count him a moderate. Likewise, the vast majority of self-described liberals consistently say that they approve of Biden's overall job performance, compared to only a minority of self-described moderates. That's just the pattern.

Conservatives are, of course, the people most often comparing Biden specifically to the likes of AOC though, claiming to surveyors that he's specifically "very liberal" or "socialist". Reasonable observers obviously wouldn't go nearly that far.

Even during Biden campaign towards president, he would still take Liberal ideals and wrap them up in a moderate package.  Example would be the Green New Deal.  I am not sure I know anyone that has wrapped Biden into a liberal package besides conservatives.  If you believe Americans have changed their opinion of Biden as a Liberal, then you have to give the credit to the conservatives for getting their message across and successfully framing him as such but if you have looked at every Biden decision before and after becoming President, there is no way you would believe he is a liberal.  Even during the Obama years, conservatives have tried to frame him as a liberal and we know Obama was about as moderate if even more so then Biden.  Conservatives has been on this plan for a very long time and have have framed the word liberal in a very broad definition compared to what it has meant in the pass.

Now Biden has tried to gain both votes and straggle the middle but that's pretty much what most politicians try to do when appealing to a wide select audience especially Dems. 

As I stated, politics is about the message and its not about any particular truth, its how you can frame a situation to manipulate the masses into believing what you are selling.  The advantage for the GOP is that Biden is a liberal so that they can frame him like AOC and Bernie Sanders.  I would say that conservatives have been on this mission for a while as they believe it gets their base out to vote.  Framing Biden as a moderate really accomplish nothing.