Afghanistan

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

4 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

Nice. Fight for oil in this dust bowl, transport half way around the world, support radical governments, and choose not to build a pipeline from Canada that would eliminate the need for oil from the middle east, even 20 yrs ago.

Hmmmm

Still think this was all about supporting military suppliers and contractors. 

 

I’m sure it was about money and power. Just not sure which money and power. 

there’s this… 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline

[SoCal Deek]

The amount of historical reconstruction on here is absolutely stunning. What’s next….ya wanna relive Super Bowl XXV?

[Orlando Tim]

12 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

 

 

Ps

Timmy,  you seem to have data available quickly, are you sure you are not being paid for this??😁

It is amazing how often the proper words in Google or Bing bring up the correct information in the first few lines. I actually prefer Bing because google more often puts the paid ones to the top

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

44 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

It is amazing how often the proper words in Google or Bing bring up the correct information in the first few lines. I actually prefer Bing because google more often puts the paid ones to the top

Almost All search results are paid. there are ads for keyword hit then there is SEO term bidding. 

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Almost All search results are paid. there are ads for keyword hit then there is SEO term bidding. 

I do understand that but it seems to me that google is more beholden to the paid people. One example is this week I was trying to find info on the people who wanted to make it illegal to criticize Fauci and google kept pushing to articles about people who threatened Fauci from CNN and WP. Bing first articles were from lesser websites but on material I wanted.

[ComradeKayAdams]

17 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

Yes Korea was at least a partial success, negotiating with the very people we hated to divide the spoils. Not a true win, Kim is the result of that split decision. 

I question why Russia fought for this piece of dirt (Afghanistan) for 20 years, then the west did, both lost and nothing changed. I say it was nothing but spending military budget. The American people didn't want this. This was not revenge for 9 11. Trading the World Center bombing for bombing a cave of dirt and rock for 20 years, not equal.

 

Afghanistan is much more than a “piece of dirt!” It contains an enormous amount of untapped mineral resources that can be used for the electronics industry and for other various high-tech emerging industries. Historically, the land has also held an important trade position connecting the Chinese empire with the Persian empire. Nowadays, the United States can look at the country as a favorable geostrategic position from which to watch over her biggest adversaries: China, especially Iran, and Russia too. If you look at a complete map of U.S. military bases around the world, you will see something very interesting: we’re REALLY obsessed with surrounding Iran on all sides! I believe these are the most important reasons for our extended military occupation there.

 

Spreading democracy, upholding international human rights, controlling the opium market, diverting oil pipelines, maintaining a high budget for the military industrial complex…all good answers, but I think they are secondary motivations. Seeking revenge for 9/11, dismantling the Taliban, and stopping Islamic terrorism were the main reasons for entering the war and certainly the main reasons why any American citizens continued supporting the war in its early stages. But now?

 

At this point, it is indeed all about American imperialism. Afghanistan is only one of the more obvious examples of this deeply immoral and pervasive foreign policy, with Iraq being the most obvious one (Libya, Syria, and Saudi Arabia/Yemen are conspicuous as well. Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Israel/Palestine, and countries involving military drones are perhaps a bit more subtle). As someone who is a strident non-interventionist, I am actually MORE concerned that we are (allegedly…) withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan. Why are we (allegedly…) abandoning this strategic military outpost?? My cynical suspicion is that we may soon see false flags somewhere in the Middle East (Syria?) that will get us into some form of a protracted war with Iran. And if I was a resource-rich South American country with a left-leaning government, I would be sleeping with one wary eye open northward.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I do understand that but it seems to me that google is more beholden to the paid people. One example is this week I was trying to find info on the people who wanted to make it illegal to criticize Fauci and google kept pushing to articles about people who threatened Fauci from CNN and WP. Bing first articles were from lesser websites but on material I wanted.

It’s true. For a less manipulated search experience try duck duck go. Doesn’t steal your data as badly either.

[SoCal Deek]

21 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Afghanistan is much more than a “piece of dirt!” It contains an enormous amount of untapped mineral resources that can be used for the electronics industry and for other various high-tech emerging industries. Historically, the land has also held an important trade position connecting the Chinese empire with the Persian empire. Nowadays, the United States can look at the country as a favorable geostrategic position from which to watch over her biggest adversaries: China, especially Iran, and Russia too. If you look at a complete map of U.S. military bases around the world, you will see something very interesting: we’re REALLY obsessed with surrounding Iran on all sides! I believe these are the most important reasons for our extended military occupation there.

 

Spreading democracy, upholding international human rights, controlling the opium market, diverting oil pipelines, maintaining a high budget for the military industrial complex…all good answers, but I think they are secondary motivations. Seeking revenge for 9/11, dismantling the Taliban, and stopping Islamic terrorism were the main reasons for entering the war and certainly the main reasons why any American citizens continued supporting the war in its early stages. But now?

 

At this point, it is indeed all about American imperialism. Afghanistan is only one of the more obvious examples of this deeply immoral and pervasive foreign policy, with Iraq being the most obvious one (Libya, Syria, and Saudi Arabia/Yemen are conspicuous as well. Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Israel/Palestine, and countries involving military drones are perhaps a bit more subtle). As someone who is a strident non-interventionist, I am actually MORE concerned that we are (allegedly…) withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan. Why are we (allegedly…) abandoning this strategic military outpost?? My cynical suspicion is that we may soon see false flags somewhere in the Middle East (Syria?) that will get us into some form of a protracted war with Iran. And if I was a resource-rich South American country with a left-leaning government, I would be sleeping with one wary eye open northward.

Kay

As you know, we don’t always agree, but having been outright attacked on American soil in horrific fashion on 9/11 it’s hard to believe this board’s even having this discussion. (Of course it was started by a Canadian) What did people expect the US government was going to do after such an attack? Say “oh well” or “darn it”. The true debate is over how we managed things once there. Unless you’re going to colonize the place it’s somewhat of a lose:lose but you still have to put the hammer down.

[dpberr]

The US was doomed to fail in Afghanistan the moment it decided to occupy it, just like all those that came before it tried to do. 

 

China is there to control the heroin fields. They will pay the Taliban not to destroy them and to look the other way. 

Nobody seems to wonder who funds the Taliban.  It takes a lot of money to fund and equip an army, and I doubt Pakistan is footing that bill for 20 years.

Edited August 9, 2021 by dpberr

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 8/8/2021 at 8:10 AM, SoCal Deek said:

Kay

As you know, we don’t always agree, but having been outright attacked on American soil in horrific fashion on 9/11 it’s hard to believe this board’s even having this discussion. (Of course it was started by a Canadian) What did people expect the US government was going to do after such an attack? Say “oh well” or “darn it”. The true debate is over how we managed things once there. Unless you’re going to colonize the place it’s somewhat of a lose:lose but you still have to put the hammer down.

 

Right, but none of us are challenging the original stated reason for entering the Afghanistan conflict! Adopting a policy of non-interventionism doesn’t mean you don’t fight back in self-defense. The relevant topic here is an examination of why this war has persisted for TWO FULL DECADES. And to me, at least, the answer is obvious: American imperialism.

 

You seem a bit hostile toward political retrospection, SoCal Deek! A quick look into the Afghanistan region’s long history beforehand would have informed us that forcing democracy and our own specific values onto such a balkanized society (that is living within such a difficult-to-traverse mountainous topography, no less) was doomed to fail. Our country’s record of success with boots-on-ground regime changes, organized coups, and hard sanctions since World War 2 is beyond dismal. And studies of empire collapses throughout human history suggest that overextending one’s own military at the expense of domestic investments is a very bad idea. But I’m sure the sociopathic oligarchic powers in control of our country already knew all of this, and that’s kind of the point. They knew and didn’t care.

 

Canadian or not, Niagara Bill’s thread is actually one of the most interesting and important ones I see on this forum’s first page. My PPP raison d’etre is to get people thinking beyond the “left versus right” American political paradigm that has defined the twentieth century and more toward a twenty-first century “populist versus establishment” framework. Some of you seem to already be there, though way too many of you seem to not understand that imperialism is the foreign policy arm of the establishment. Afghanistan is just the low-hanging fruit, so to speak, of this political awareness. Neoliberal Dems defended Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, but then they looked the other way on disastrous situations like Libya and Syria. Trumpers praised their charlatan’s scathing criticisms of Hillary’s record as Secretary of State, but then had no problem with his renewal of the ineffective six decades-long Cuban embargo or his reckless reversal of the JCPOA (which has now, in turn, hindered Biden’s options with Iran). Neither political side appears to have a problem with coups/sanctions against Venezuela and its people, not to mention the human rights violations against Palestinians in the name of Empress America’s militarily strategic Middle East satellite state. Both sides, of course, excused their guy’s failure to withdraw troops from the Afghanistan conflict.

 

All underlying motives of the U.S. government are clearly economic in nature, not moral (I’m referring specifically to the corporate oligarchs in charge and not the overall voting citizenry who technically put them in charge). Democratically elected socialists in, say, South America are constantly challenged, while gross human rights violators in, say, Africa are routinely overlooked. Empress America especially hates anything associated with “socialism” or “communism,” but not because of the lowered standards of living these systems tend to generate for their citizens. Rather, the reason is because they tend to be much less likely to allow foreign capitalistic powers to come in and exploit their natural resources and labor pools.

 

Economic factors and military efficacies aside, let’s think a bit more about the moral quandaries that the establishment’s foreign policy creates. A large majority of this forum’s participants are strict constructionism types and Judeo-Christian philosophy proponents to varying degrees. But where in the Constitution does it say that our country has the right or the imperative to tell other sovereign nations how to organize their own governments or their own labor pools? And would Jesus be okay with indiscriminately bombing brown people, depriving said brown people of basic economic goods and services needed for survival, or carrying out military drone programs where ~90% of kills are not even the intended target? I guess I should stop typing now because hardly anyone reads what I write anyway (though a few of the BillsFans.com boys still do! Thanks, guys!). I wish people would take a minute every now and then to really think about U.S. foreign policy in various scenarios. Apply the Golden Rule and reverse the roles of the U.S. and the other country/countries in question. See if your opinions change.

[SectionC3]

On 8/6/2021 at 6:50 PM, Chef Jim said:

Wait…Dema didn’t want to get smeared as anti-war?   Did I read that right?  😂

 

BTW I have down on my calendar 9/11/2021 if Mr Biden keeps his promise.  And I will be the first to congratulate him for removing us.  Let them wallow in their own shithole. 

 

There but for the grace of . . . never mind. 

On 8/8/2021 at 8:10 AM, SoCal Deek said:

Kay

As you know, we don’t always agree, but having been outright attacked on American soil in horrific fashion on 9/11 it’s hard to believe this board’s even having this discussion. (Of course it was started by a Canadian) What did people expect the US government was going to do after such an attack? Say “oh well” or “darn it”. The true debate is over how we managed things once there. Unless you’re going to colonize the place it’s somewhat of a lose:lose but you still have to put the hammer down.

Agreed.  It's one thing to go.  It's another thing to stay, especially once Osama bin Laden was eliminated. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Right, but none of us are challenging the original stated reason for entering the Afghanistan conflict! Adopting a policy of non-interventionism doesn’t mean you don’t fight back in self-defense. The relevant topic here is an examination of why this war has persisted for TWO FULL DECADES. And to me, at least, the answer is obvious: American imperialism.

 

You seem a bit hostile toward political retrospection, SoCal Deek! A quick look into the Afghanistan region’s long history beforehand would have informed us that forcing democracy and our own specific values onto such a balkanized society (that is living within such a difficult-to-traverse mountainous topography, no less) was doomed to fail. Our country’s record of success with boots-on-ground regime changes, organized coups, and hard sanctions since World War 2 is beyond dismal. And studies of empire collapses throughout human history suggest that overextending one’s own military at the expense of domestic investments is a very bad idea. But I’m sure the sociopathic oligarchic powers in control of our country already knew all of this, and that’s kind of the point. They knew and didn’t care.

 

Canadian or not, Niagara Bill’s thread is actually one of the most interesting and important ones I see on this forum’s first page. My PPP raison d’etre is to get people thinking beyond the “left versus right” American political paradigm that has defined the twentieth century and more toward a twenty-first century “populist versus establishment” framework. Some of you seem to already be there, though way too many of you seem to not understand that imperialism is the foreign policy arm of the establishment. Afghanistan is just the low-hanging fruit, so to speak, of this political awareness. Neoliberal Dems defended Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, but then they looked the other way on disastrous situations like Libya and Syria. Trumpers praised their charlatan’s scathing criticisms of Hillary’s record as Secretary of State, but then had no problem with his renewal of the ineffective six decades-long Cuban embargo or his reckless reversal of the JCPOA (which has now, in turn, hindered Biden’s options with Iran). Neither political side appears to have a problem with coups/sanctions against Venezuela and its people, not to mention the human rights violations against Palestinians in the name of Empress America’s militarily strategic Middle East satellite state. Both sides, of course, excused their guy’s failure to withdraw troops from the Afghanistan conflict.

 

All underlying motives of the U.S. government are clearly economic in nature, not moral (I’m referring specifically to the corporate oligarchs in charge and not the overall voting citizenry who technically put them in charge). Democratically elected socialists in, say, South America are constantly challenged, while gross human rights violators in, say, Africa are routinely overlooked. Empress America especially hates anything associated with “socialism” or “communism,” but not because of the lowered standards of living these systems tend to generate for their citizens. Rather, the reason is because they tend to be much less likely to allow foreign capitalistic powers to come in and exploit their natural resources and labor pools.

 

Economic factors and military efficacies aside, let’s think a bit more about the moral quandaries that the establishment’s foreign policy creates. A large majority of this forum’s participants are strict constructionism types and Judeo-Christian philosophy proponents to varying degrees. But where in the Constitution does it say that our country has the right or the imperative to tell other sovereign nations how to organize their own governments or their own labor pools? And would Jesus be okay with indiscriminately bombing brown people, depriving said brown people of basic economic goods and services needed for survival, or carrying out military drone programs where ~90% of kills are not even the intended target? I guess I should stop typing now because hardly anyone reads what I write anyway (though a few of the BillsFans.com boys still do! Thanks, guys!). I wish people would take a minute every now and then to really think about U.S. foreign policy in various scenarios. Apply the Golden Rule and reverse the roles of the U.S. and the other country/countries in question. See if your opinions change.

You make a lot of great points.  And I agree with most of it.  But I think from the beginning defeat in Afghanistan was inevitable.  Its not called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.  Its essentially a tribal society without any real concept of a powerful central government.  Defining one and setting it up based on some model of democracy was bound to fail.  And most of the "hostiles" just went over the border to Pakistan just waiting it out moving in and out of the country when required.  Once the primary mission was completed the decision should have been made to split.  But the DOD and the Pentagon never let a good opportunity to expand the defense budget go to waste.  So 20 years later an epic fail and in steps China and Russia.  Who could have seen that coming?

 

I have concluded US Middle East policy is based on the maintenance of "chaos", support for the State of Israel, and the continuation of the PetroDollar system of trade settlement in the oil markets.  In fact, I'd suggest that maintaining the global reverse and trade settlement status of the US Dollar is the fundamental objective of US foreign policy.  Its the system that creates foreign demand for US treasury paper and dollars.  Its the privilege to "print money" that no other country has.  Its the privilege that allows the US Congress and Presidents to pass multi-trillion dollar deficit spending bills without having to worry about where all that money comes from.  The reserve/trade settlement system is something Iran, Iraq, Libya and just about every other country that gets attacked or sanctioned has or is trying to remove themselves from participation.  It something the Saudi's still support.  That support is enhanced by US "protection" of the monarchy and the monarchies decisions to spend some $50B on defense spending.  A little less than what Russia spends.  This arrangement is just a traditional protection racket.  The US government protecting Saudi interests by refusing to declassify incriminating 9/11 information is one example of an element of this arrangement.  A government protecting a foreign government and its citizens that have committing terrorist and criminal acts against its own citizens.  What democratic government would do that?   

So US foreign policy is simply "follow the rules we set or else".  If you don't then political, economic, and if necessary either direct or indirect force through either the military or intelligence agencies will be applied to your nation and government and the most likely outcome will be the people currently in charge will be out of a job soon.

 

So while I agree with the Imperialism view who is calling the shots in the US?   Its not the political parties or the administration in power.  If you look at the political views of the Trump administration vs. the Biden administration you'd expect to see some tangible difference in their foreign policy approach.  But you don't.  In fact you see Biden's budget proposals actually looking to increase defense spending above what Trump budgeted. This appears in conflict with the "progressive" nature of the administration.  As they have no problem blowing up people of color on the international front and yet present themselves as the champion of minority rights domestically.  People are people no matter which side of the line on the map they stand on.  But policy never changes from one administration to another no matter the spot on the political spectrum those administrations represented. 

And truth be told, Trump wasn't impeached and harassed for 4 years because of some ethical, moral, or legal violations of law and the constitution.  He was harassed because he threatened the power of this establishment and pushed for policy change they saw as a threat to their agenda and power.  So there's an underlying force controlling the government and policy.  Some call it the establishment or the deep state.  Who's behind it all?  Some say the 1% or the .1%, the Davos crowd, Soros's NWO.  Me, I can't say I am sure.  I'm interested in getting some perspectives on this. 

 

What also seems strange is the current left supports this Imperialist model by bringing it home and imposing it on the domestic population.  There doesn't seem to be any issues or moral and ethical questions about imposing restrictions and punishment for non-compliance on US citizens through unilateral and undemocratic edicts and proclamations through the executive branch via executive orders or agency pronouncements.  So how can that be reconciled with their expressed woke and social justice views as "domestic imperialism" seems just fine to them.

    

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Right, but none of us are challenging the original stated reason for entering the Afghanistan conflict! Adopting a policy of non-interventionism doesn’t mean you don’t fight back in self-defense. The relevant topic here is an examination of why this war has persisted for TWO FULL DECADES. And to me, at least, the answer is obvious: American imperialism.

 

You seem a bit hostile toward political retrospection, SoCal Deek! A quick look into the Afghanistan region’s long history beforehand would have informed us that forcing democracy and our own specific values onto such a balkanized society (that is living within such a difficult-to-traverse mountainous topography, no less) was doomed to fail. Our country’s record of success with boots-on-ground regime changes, organized coups, and hard sanctions since World War 2 is beyond dismal. And studies of empire collapses throughout human history suggest that overextending one’s own military at the expense of domestic investments is a very bad idea. But I’m sure the sociopathic oligarchic powers in control of our country already knew all of this, and that’s kind of the point. They knew and didn’t care.

 

Canadian or not, Niagara Bill’s thread is actually one of the most interesting and important ones I see on this forum’s first page. My PPP raison d’etre is to get people thinking beyond the “left versus right” American political paradigm that has defined the twentieth century and more toward a twenty-first century “populist versus establishment” framework. Some of you seem to already be there, though way too many of you seem to not understand that imperialism is the foreign policy arm of the establishment. Afghanistan is just the low-hanging fruit, so to speak, of this political awareness. Neoliberal Dems defended Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, but then they looked the other way on disastrous situations like Libya and Syria. Trumpers praised their charlatan’s scathing criticisms of Hillary’s record as Secretary of State, but then had no problem with his renewal of the ineffective six decades-long Cuban embargo or his reckless reversal of the JCPOA (which has now, in turn, hindered Biden’s options with Iran). Neither political side appears to have a problem with coups/sanctions against Venezuela and its people, not to mention the human rights violations against Palestinians in the name of Empress America’s militarily strategic Middle East satellite state. Both sides, of course, excused their guy’s failure to withdraw troops from the Afghanistan conflict.

 

All underlying motives of the U.S. government are clearly economic in nature, not moral (I’m referring specifically to the corporate oligarchs in charge and not the overall voting citizenry who technically put them in charge). Democratically elected socialists in, say, South America are constantly challenged, while gross human rights violators in, say, Africa are routinely overlooked. Empress America especially hates anything associated with “socialism” or “communism,” but not because of the lowered standards of living these systems tend to generate for their citizens. Rather, the reason is because they tend to be much less likely to allow foreign capitalistic powers to come in and exploit their natural resources and labor pools.

 

Economic factors and military efficacies aside, let’s think a bit more about the moral quandaries that the establishment’s foreign policy creates. A large majority of this forum’s participants are strict constructionism types and Judeo-Christian philosophy proponents to varying degrees. But where in the Constitution does it say that our country has the right or the imperative to tell other sovereign nations how to organize their own governments or their own labor pools? And would Jesus be okay with indiscriminately bombing brown people, depriving said brown people of basic economic goods and services needed for survival, or carrying out military drone programs where ~90% of kills are not even the intended target? I guess I should stop typing now because hardly anyone reads what I write anyway (though a few of the BillsFans.com boys still do! Thanks, guys!). I wish people would take a minute every now and then to really think about U.S. foreign policy in various scenarios. Apply the Golden Rule and reverse the roles of the U.S. and the other country/countries in question. See if your opinions change.

Thanks Kay, and yes I skimmed your latest manifesto….but I stand by my original post and believe it’s YOU who took this in a different direction. The thread and the immediate responses were about ‘why’ and the ‘worth’ of going to Afghanistan…not, as you say, about why we stayed for so long. And, finally if this was about American imperialism as you say then why isn’t this the United Kingdom of America? We didn’t colonize any of the places we’ve attacked, fought, or defended (Germany, Japan, Iraq, Vietnam). That’s the unique nature of American policy. It’s what makes us so different from other historical ‘empires’. It’s also what makes our policy so darn difficult to pull off successfully. Heck it’d be a whole lot easier to move in and own the place, but we don’t. We try to give a better place to the people of each country while running out the regime responsible for their plight. Lastly, the comment about ‘brown’ people is off base, gratuitous, and offensive. Our military actions when looked at over the long arc of history have been color blind.

[Niagara Bill]

On 8/8/2021 at 8:10 AM, SoCal Deek said:

Kay

As you know, we don’t always agree, but having been outright attacked on American soil in horrific fashion on 9/11 it’s hard to believe this board’s even having this discussion. (Of course it was started by a Canadian) What did people expect the US government was going to do after such an attack? Say “oh well” or “darn it”. The true debate is over how we managed things once there. Unless you’re going to colonize the place it’s somewhat of a lose:lose but you still have to put the hammer down.

The discussion was about 20 years of losses, 10 after all the bad guys were killed. What is the real reason Russia then US spent billions on this poop hole. Military might and contractors getting rich. More money spent here than all the wasted social programs. 

Sadam was a joke but at least a victory. 

 

[dpberr]

12 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Sadam was a joke but at least a victory. 

The military campaign, yes.  Every second of every minute afterwards, failure.  The biggest blunder was the elimination of the Iraqi Armed Forces post-conflict because we needed to create an Iraqi military in our image.  That just funneled thousands of desperate, unemployed men to the insurgency.  The Iraq War was an unnecessary war.  From a realpolitik viewpoint, Saddam was a pressure door against the Iranians and al-Qaeda.  

[SoCal Deek]

5 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

The discussion was about 20 years of losses, 10 after all the bad guys were killed. What is the real reason Russia then US spent billions on this poop hole. Military might and contractors getting rich. More money spent here than all the wasted social programs. 

Sadam was a joke but at least a victory. 

 

I’m sorry, but judging by the many responses I’m not sure your original post was all that clear. It’s one of the problems inherent in communicating complex issues via a message board. If you’re asking why we stayed then I guess you could ask the same question about the many other countries where we still have airbases etc all over the globe. Think about it, the US still operates a base in Cuba and it’s a stone’s throw from Miami.  I think the better question is why did we leave? 

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m sorry, but judging by the many responses I’m not sure your original post was all that clear. It’s one of the problems inherent in communicating complex issues via a message board. If you’re asking why we stayed then I guess you could ask the same question about the many other countries where we still have airbases etc all over the globe. Think about it, the US still operates a base in Cuba and it’s a stone’s throw from Miami.  I think the better question is why did we leave? 

You left because peace is impossible, you cannot win a religious war and the cost is out of this world. There likely is some type of agreement with Russia we will never know.

Airbase in peaceful nations is a different strategy. 

Afghanistan is nothing to this world. A poop hole. 

 

Never did understand how Kennedy could invade Cuba, with a couple of nutty ex-cubans and have a base 30 miles away....and after a failure the base stays?

 

Anyway, with the pull out including Canadian forces, the immigration of 10,000 endangered citizens I was curious...is this what 20 yrs and billions of dollars gets you....hardly a mention in the press and Washington. Like a dog licking it's wounds as radical religious forces murder their citizens. At least the Vietnam pullout was major news. 

We often debate money and social programs on this site....the wasted $$$$ employed a pile of military companies which is a social program for that industry.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

You left because peace is impossible, you cannot win a religious war and the cost is out of this world. There likely is some type of agreement with Russia we will never know.

Airbase in peaceful nations is a different strategy. 

Afghanistan is nothing to this world. A poop hole. 

 

Never did understand how Kennedy could invade Cuba, with a couple of nutty ex-cubans and have a base 30 miles away....and after a failure the base stays?

 

Anyway, with the pull out including Canadian forces, the immigration of 10,000 endangered citizens I was curious...is this what 20 yrs and billions of dollars gets you....hardly a mention in the press and Washington. Like a dog licking it's wounds as radical religious forces murder their citizens. At least the Vietnam pullout was major news. 

We often debate money and social programs on this site....the wasted $$$$ employed a pile of military companies which is a social program for that industry.

 

 

An excellent debate for sure. We could go back and forth for days on end about the military industrial complex, and maybe we will. I’m guessing we’ve spent way way more in Germany maintaining staff and equipment there since 1945. It’s all part and parcel of being a Super Power. If you don’t want to spend that kind of blood and treasure then you’re just another country with a largish population…like Brazil. Maybe that’s a better thing to be, but we didn’t end up here out of nowhere. I’m a big cause and effect guy. Prior to WWII we were Brazil but the war happened and we got involved. Ever since then America has assumed the mantel and the world seems to like it that way. Is it expensive? Yes it is. 

[dpberr]

Kabul will be in Taliban control by 9/11. 

 

That's their push. 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

On 8/10/2021 at 7:37 PM, SoCal Deek said:

An excellent debate for sure. We could go back and forth for days on end about the military industrial complex, and maybe we will. I’m guessing we’ve spent way way more in Germany maintaining staff and equipment there since 1945. It’s all part and parcel of being a Super Power. If you don’t want to spend that kind of blood and treasure then you’re just another country with a largish population…like Brazil. Maybe that’s a better thing to be, but we didn’t end up here out of nowhere. I’m a big cause and effect guy. Prior to WWII we were Brazil but the war happened and we got involved. Ever since then America has assumed the mantel and the world seems to like it that way. Is it expensive? Yes it is. 

I be agree in general but Afghanistan appears to be a different beast.  The Soviet Union lost there, we had 20 years to no avail.  The Afghan people do not have the will to keep their country.