For women and especially young girls, unfortunately yes.

But that is not a reason to stay.

Sadly the human experience is one where a third party can almost never impose their view of peace on another unless they are prepared to keep them under the boot forever.

I don't think slavery ends in America if another country tried to come in and force it. More likely the North units with the South to battle a common enemy.

Look how long troops had to stand between the Irish.


Sometimes you have to let things play out and the brutality you know is coming happen and that then, hopefully spurs people with good conscious within the country to change over time and stand up to it until they have their own form of civil war.

That is how America eventually changed.

right but realize the Taliban is in power BECAUSE of the USA. we have backed countless regimes that oppressed "women and young girls" and really all different groups of people.

so I dont buy it.

remember, Afghanistan underwent a series of modernized reforms in the late 70s that included massive womens rights and the the end theocracy. ofc it also involved keeping its own wealth. and friendly relations with the Soviet neighbors. This would not fly with the West and we worked to overthrow the secular govt in favor of the Taliban predecessors.

oh I don't dispute that.

Afghanistan, bringing 'freedom to Iraq', and so many other places the US screwed up only then to have an excuse to deliver 'freedum'.

Friendly relations with its Soviet neighbor?

Soviet invaded in 1979. During the ten year war they killed some 2 million civilians, wounded 3 million and 5 million Afghans fled the country

And Taliban was founded in 1994.

So much hot nonsense in this post. What's the over/under on how many paint chips Victor ate when he was a kid?

Even if his facts are wrong, the states loves to go in and absolutely demolish a country, then leave it unstable for years to come. If they're not using bombs then they're using death squads, assassinations, political over throws etc. They have a shitload in their playbook of mayhem

i took it mean he was not talking specifics but in generalities, in which case what he wrote was correct

I'm not sure who he is here

the facts arent even wrong. the only part that isnt well documented is how involved the USA was in the overthrow of the secular govt in the late 70s prior to the Soviet invasion.

yall think the Soviets just invaded bc they are mean murderous commies. they invaded bc a Wester backed hostile regime popped up next door.

I watched the Sitcom United States of Al

Is it true that the USA is going to leave 17,000 translators behind that they promised citizenship too?

Heck Biden raised the numbers t0 65,000 why not......

That's not really true. The US would love if Afghanistan, Iraq etc looked like Japan in the 80s iby 2040. The truth is it's really hard to create stable superpowers in regions that very recently had awful governments; not that the US wants instability.

Well if the u.s. wants stability then they have a really weird way of showing it

By the same logic NFL teams must secretly want to blow first round picks on guys like Jameis Winston or Josh Rosen.

I think first and foremost the US decides when a regime should end and they then choose whether or not to act upon that.

While stability may be preferred, and they may sometimes believe it is achievable, I don't think they blink twice or slow down in action even if they know chaos and far more death are a likely result.

Step A will not be thwarted by outcomes of Step B.

I am curious if anyone does not think this blast and many attacks to come are being done directly or indirectly by those who are the beneficiaries of US money that has been flowing into Afghanistan and now set to stop?

That this is US forces (or their extension thereof) that will be behind stuff like this?

---------------


Kabul attack: Families bury schoolchildren of blast that killed 50

---------------



And if you think, as i do, that these are preoccupation efforts but those being paid to be there, does that not then lead you to accept that those same forces there are not, in fact, working to end the conflicts (and thus their money flow) and instead trying to institutionalize this conflict and manage it?

The Military complex loves 'forever wars'. Unwinnable wars that can only be managed. The end of the Cold War made them enormously sad. The War on Terror, which could never be won made them very happy. The War on Iraq which could never be won made them very happy. The War on Drugs which can never be won, has made them very happy. Afghanistan as an unwinnable war made them very happy, but the idea of just 'abandoning' a forever war is anathema to them.

interesting thing just got back from a dinner with some officials who joked about how the US was doing just enough to keep the place unstable for 2 reasons

1 China has the rights to a ton of their natural resources but it's all in remote areas that need roads/infrastructure etc developed in order to get to so that's a no go until the place is stable as it's too risky to develop all that just to become a target for kidnapping/sabotage/etc

2 the belt and road iniative needs to go around afghanistan right now and they'd save a ton of money in both initial construction and transportation time if they could go directly through it instead of around it



i'm aware it was mostly joking due to the fact that they had an american in their presence but still an interesting thought exercise

Someone opposed to the war in Afghanistan because they oppose war, won't accept civilian losses and so forth are understandable views.

Opposing this war because of those things and excusing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan makes no sense. It was one of the most brutal wars in regards to civilian losses carried out a by a major military power in the modern era.

I wouldn't be surprised if China got involved, but if they do, I predict they'll get bit like everyone else. It has been a colonial playground since Russia and Britain duked it out and no major power has yet been able to solve the riddle of a population of ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural differences has at best reached levels of peace that would be charitably described as "civil war on hold".

China is already there with One Belt One Road and spies. They have been openly courting the Taliban leadership since before 9/11. China has literally billions of dollars, not to mention an unquantifiable amount of political capital, invested in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

With China getting involved, India probably will too. Pakistan of course will still simultaneously play the roles of adversary and power broker. Pakistan's involvement then inevitably will get US involved at some point.

So much for stability.

Aye, I meant a strategic presence. Until now they have relied on the frail stability from Operation Resolute Support, which has blocked final pushes from the Taliban.

Right. And this isn't the same thing as saying the US/west is 100% benevolent and their interventions/rebuilds always work out great. But you CAN pretty much make the inverse claim that Soviet interventions always turned out terribly (East Germany, Soviet Bloch, North Korea). The US at least had some run away success stories (West Germany, Japan, South Korea).

nfl first round picks busted therefore the USA can do no wrong in foreign policy. liberal propaganda is a helluva drug.

show me where I "excused" anything.

I simply pointed out the massive hypocrisy that the liberal Western power lovers like yourself show.

good post. it is also anathema to so much of the USA population as well. even the liberals support it.

well what is "the US"? i would imagine must individual people on the street probably would want stability, but thats not the same thing as what the people with all the money and power want