I literally never thought I would see the day. I was born in 98 and all I’ve known is constant war. Seeing family and friends come back from a pointless war and the issues they personally face is heartbreaking. This should have happened so long ago
> a pointless war
Promoting and defending democracy, and creating democracies in the place of totalitarian dictatorships was never pointless.
Pointless was bombing the crap out of Libya and Syria for all of 2011, then 2012/13 respectively and leaving them failed states and hotbeds for terrorism.
You have to ignore the millions upon millions of people standing in line for their first times in their lives, in lines being blown up by terrorists, just to vote. The people writing their own constitutions for their own representative democracies, and replacing their theocracy or totalitarian dictatorship with a functioning democracy that has lasted over a decade and is still going strong. You also have to ignore the alternative costs, like watching ISIS grow and keep the region destabilized and terrorism that extends beyond Syria's borders and into Europe. Not to mention the humanitarian costs for all those living in the most dystopian of societies on earth under tyrannical dictatorships and pretend those thousands dead don't matter...
Anyone can stand on the sidelines and complain pretty effortlessly - with no real solution other than "Leave those tyrants alone" if you want to.
The US and allies have fought a 19 year long war to get rid of the Taliban. The Taliban are still there, and when the US leaves they will be the strongest out of the two groupings in that country. That's square one.
Afghanistan isn't a functioning democracy. They are literally ranked behind Russia, Venezuela and Egypt on the Democracy Index, and are well within the "authoritarian" bracket. They narrowly beat out Cuba and the UAE. The latter still operating with something that looks like the feudal system.
Removing totalitarian dictators from power is all good and well, although that wasn't really the reason why the US went to war with Afghanistan. But they haven't really succeeded. And I don't know if the 200 thousand dead, and probably half a million dead + wounded agree that it was worth it. Or the millions upon millions of Afghan refugees for that matter.
> They narrowly beat out Cuba and the UAE.
The country that the lead Democrat likes to praise? Interesting.
>the Democracy Index,
Who cares what a UK Company that ranks the US at the bottom thinks?
>Removing totalitarian dictators from power is all good and well,
It's funny how people like you say that, but then have no plan on how to do so... and tend to end with "So we shouldn't try".
>Afghans set to vote in presidential polls as Taliban threat looms
About 9.6 million voters are registered to take part in Saturday's key election to decide the fate of 14 candidates.
35.53 million (2017) population, about 27% of the population. (Approximately 46% of the population is under 15 years of age, according to wikki) so about 1/2 the eligible voters register to vote...
Here in the US we see about the same numbers.
And we don't have to worry about being blown up in line while voting.
I'd say those are millions and millions.
And again - you seem to ignore all the people killed by religious extremists as if it just doesn't happen or wouldn't happen... which is odd. If you are going to try to do some moral mathmatics I'd think you'd include people beheaded and stoned and whatnot...
Sanders doesn't praise Cuba for being "a functioning democracy", lmao.
You seem to think the Democracy Index is a targeted attack against the US? lol. It's political scientific model based on a bunch of indicators. The US isn't bottom either, I don't know where you've gotten that notion. They are in the top 1/6th, which is probably accurate.
> It's funny how people like you say that, but then have no plan on how to do so
So just like the US.
> and tend to end with "So we shouldn't try".
No, I don't think we should create millions upon millions of refugees and kill hundreds of thousands of people without having a plan, because "well, might as well try". The fact is that the US fuck up a bunch of countries, and it falls on Europe (and neighbouring countries) to take the economic burden from idiotic foreign policy decisions. Germany has taken in 125k Afghan refugees, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria and the UK another 200k.
> The entire second half of your comment
I don't know why you are linking an Al-Jazeera article from September when you could just talk about the results in that actual election.
The actual turnout was 18% (1.8 million votes out of 9.6 million registered, about 5% of their entire population). Which is beyond terrible. It's 1/3rd of the US' percentage for turnout, for instance, which already isn't great. When it comes to a percentage of the entire population its much much worse. 130 million people voted during the 2016 US election, which is more than 1/3rd of the US population. 5%, however, is as if only 16 million voted in the 2016 US election.
And voter turnout is only one out of several factors to judge a democracy on, others are, the fairness of the election, press freedom during the campaign and the security of the voters.
I don't know much about Afghan press freedom, but the fact about this election is that it was marred by electoral mismanagement, allegations of voter fraud and threats of or actual widespread violence.
Studies have shown that occupying and using military force was the wrong decision. Hell, ISIS was founded by an old Taliban guy **because** of US hatred and his involvement. Remember Saddam and the gulf war? Who put him in a position of power? The USA did.
I agree with your first point, everyone should have a say and live in some type of democratic society. I’m saying the way it happened was wrong and hurt everyone involved financially, socially, and mentally. Why should we be the ones to set up their government for them?We’re throwing money at a war in hopes that it will stop, and the children growing up there witness all of it. You can sit there all you want and think the foreign viewpoint is that we’re *heroes*. That is so far from the case in most areas. The war has been pointless, what have we gained from it besides battle torn veterans with mental health issues, and killing Osama? We started a war that was essentially a witch hunt for Osama bin laden. That is bullshit. **We never went after the Saudi’s when they had direct involvement.**
if you really think we gained anything from this war please educate me because there is literally no good that has come from it in my opinion.
> Studies have shown that occupying and using military force was the wrong decision.
Studies, huh? I'm sure all those studies have won wars and replaced totalitarian dictatorships with democracies before, amirite?
>Hell, ISIS was founded by an old Taliban guy because of US hatred and his involvement.
A Taliban guy, who hates democracy and will do anything to stop it! You don't say!
ISIS became a thing because Obama sat and watched ISIS grow in Syria rather than stop them from growing. Obama literally made fun of them, calling them "The JV Team" famously, and said "Just because you put on a lakers shirt, that doesn't make you Kobe Bryant." Obama put him in a position of power by bombing Libya for all of 2011, destroying it's government, and arming untrained and unaccountable civilian militias that either joined ISIS or sold their weapons to ISIS. Obama did the same thing in Syria (Until Putin told him he couldn't depose Assad like he did Gaddafi and bombed all the CIA backed rebels to dust) ... all the While ISIS grew in Syria after Obama declared victory in Iraq in 2011 and pulled out US forces (Obama never mentioned ISIS while doing that, by the way.It's because ISIS didn't exist.), ISIS recruited and armed themselves and trained and invaded Iraq in January of 2014 from their base in Syria.
>Remember Saddam and the gulf war? Who put him in a position of power? The USA did.
The Gulf war happened because Saddam invaded Kuwait and he was already in power.
>I agree with your first point.
Do you? It hardly seems like you do.
>I’m saying the way it happened was wrong
I agree, when you arm untrained and unaccountable militias and bomb the government out of existence and hope the "right people" fill the void but don't actually commit to restoring order in that country. But I don't think you can even see the difference between what we did before and after the Iraq and Afganistan wars were different.
>the children growing up there witness all of it.
They also witness ISIS or AQ rolling into town, cutting off people's heads, and lining the streets with their headless corpses - because there is no one to stop them.
>You can sit there all you want and think the foreign viewpoint is that we’re heroes. That is so far from the case in most areas.
Seems more like you are just another person blaming the only country that supports and promotes democracy... and ignoring the totalitarian dictators and theological terrorists.
>We never went after the Saudi’s when they had direct involvement.
The government there did not have direct involvement.
Are you also a 9/11 Truther? What level of Trutherism do you believe? Did the CIA train bin laden and use missiles, or did bush just let it go down because he likes killing black people?
Please - feel free to expound on your great wisdom.
In school I was taught they wanted to exterminate the insurgency of Al-Qaeda. I was too young when 9/11 happened to know anything, so I guess Im going off what I was taught. We’re there other reasons besides this? I’m also confused as to why we’re still buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia after the Taliban used their money for 9/11
> In school I was taught they wanted to exterminate the insurgency of Al-Qaeda.
While that is true, after exterminating AQ, the goal was to promote democracy in a theocratic failed state to make sure it didn't become a training ground for some other terrorist group.
>Saudi Arabia after the Taliban used their money for 9/11
The Saudi Arabian government did not pay for 9/11. That is truther conspiracy.
That was the primary reason, along with the belief that they were harboring Bin Laden.
The real head scratcher was why we went to war with Iraq during that time, since they had nothing to do with 9/11. Ultimately, though, both our war with Iraq and our lack of action against Saudi have to do with oil. It’s been the impetus for so much of our foreign policy decisions for decades
> The real head scratcher was why we went to war with Iraq during that time, since they had nothing to do with 9/11.
Only for conspiracy theorists. For people who follow actual events, President Clinton had bombed Iraq only 2 years earlier for expanding their WMD program.
>CLINTON: Good evening.
>Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
>Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
>Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
>I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
But democrats prefered to run with Truther arguments instead of listen to the Democrat who was president shortly before 9/11.
>"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."
>Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."
>"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
>"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.
You were saying Clinton bombed Iraq two years prior to Bush’s invasion. That’s incorrect.
I’m also completely confused by what you mean by “truther idealism”? I’ve only heard that in relation to 9/11 being an inside job. What context are you using it in? I think you’re trying to ascribe something to me that I don’t actually believe in
> You were saying Clinton bombed Iraq two years prior to Bush’s invasion. That’s incorrect.
You are parsing hairs too much. I should have said 2 years before 9/11, and the moment Bush laid out the Axis of Evil argument in the 2002 SOTU speech where he explains why we need to stop Iraq, Iran and North Korea from disseminating WMDS to terrorist groups like AQ.
And yes, 3 and 3 months before Bush tells Saddam and sons to get out of Iraq. But Bush had already explained to the nation why he needed to act on Iraq.
Your desire to pretend that is a huge difference is childish, and just another attempt to ignore this reality.
>I think you’re trying to ascribe something to me that I don’t actually believe in
Feel free to expound on what you do believe. The rainbow spectrum of Trutherism is kind of like the rainbow spectrum of LGBTQIAGNC. I'm sure you are in the truther spectrum somewhere. All democrats are.
After getting numerous replies and reading his other comments I think he’s either a troll or delusional. I didn’t even bother to respond to the last three he sent to me, some of them he actively searched out as I wasn’t responding to him
I’m not saying it was his idea, in fact it wasn’t. People have been saying for a long time that the troops need to be pulled. But he’s the first one to do something about it. This isn’t a fool proof plan, if you read it there are some ifs to this equation. But it is far better than anyone else has came up with and is a major step in the right direction.
I’ve been hearing it since 08 from people around me and then Obama entertained the idea sometime in his second term. I’m glad it’s finally happening and if trump gets the credit I don’t really care. I just want those troops out of there because the war is basically a financial hemorrhage. I don’t even understand the end goal, really. We’re fighting a war that you literally can’t win unless you have a dystopian authoritarian government.
Hold on now. Not too long ago, there was a political party that said if Obama did this in Iraq or Afghanistan, it would be because he was just trying to "cut and run" from America's service men. Are we no longer playing that song?
I mean, how else can those poor poor guys in the MIC make all of that sweet sweet cash.
So, we spend 19 years, lose many great people, and negotiate with the bad guys while leaving out the public officials. What in the ever loving fuck did we do there. Oh right, spent a lot of money fattening the bank account of corrupt fucks and the Military Industrial Complex. But those may all be lumped together.
I understand these feelings well as someone who has spent 20 months in Afghanistan, but this was never going to end. Even with this deal it’s not truly ending. We’ll still be there.
I’m conflicted over this being good or bad, but at least it means less people will be there to get hurt and die for nothing.
Maybe I'm just slightly cynical. But I figure either it will never happen, or it will happen and the Taliban will wait about six nanoseconds before taking over from the corrupt, incompetent government there now.
Fair point. A lack of action might have been read as a sign of weaknes. That said i think maybe part of the goal was the incitement of war, and so the Bush government unfortunately may have acted according to the terrorist's wishes.
I am of the opinion that the war only created more orphans and thus more terrorists. The real victims are the brave American/NATO soldiers who lost their lives (and the families left behind).
Meanwhile the real winners are the Taliban who have strengthened their influence due to the war (no war = nowarlords right), plus the arms dealers and politicians/military men (on both sides) whose positions were guaranteed and salaries grew.
And honestly, I think history will look back on the Iraq invasion as an extension Afghanistan, in terms of it being a show of strength after an attack. You're right about the victims. But I'm not sure the Taliban come out unscathed here. Even if they take complete control of the government, the Afghanistan they had pre-9/11 is dead. That country has seen so much social change. Women there have had almost 2 decades of rights. They aren't going to go back to the dark ages again.
Most definitely the Taliban is not the same. I am just working on the principle that war = more power in the hands of militants = fucked up and misguided government.
I hope you're right that the region has moved forward, i nust find it difficult to see the positives with my cynical worldview. Anyway take it easy.
It's only going to go down from 12000 to 8600 troops within 135 days, and as stated, for the Taliban to essentially stop being the Taliban. In a few months you'll hear some excuse on how the Taliban failed to hold their end of the bargain.