discussion Should the US have pulled out of Afghanistan?

[Tropez]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Mendes said:

Regardless of the causes and any meddling or bad choices the US made pre-9/11—of which there is an inexcusable many—the suggestion that not invading after 9/11 was ever an option is insane. 

 

I’m not pro-war, especially not when this country’s relationship to war is perhaps the unhealthiest in the western world. But truly, is the expectation here for almost 3,000 people who had nothing to do with their government’s meddling to have to simply take the loss on their government’s behalf with no attempt made by anyone to bring those responsible to justice? There wasn’t a choice. 

 

I don’t deny our own actions helped create the situation. Hell, I wouldn’t even deny it was one of if not THE leading factor. 

 

But the question in the OP was should we have pulled out of Afghanistan after getting there due to the invasion. Your initial response implied that you thought we didn’t have reason or cause to’ve invaded in 2001. That is the part that is untrue, no one is arguing the stuff pre-9/11 is untrue. 

 

52 minutes ago, Bears01 said:

Yes, our meddling was our fault. 
 

No, the American people would not have been okay or accepting of watching their fellow citizens, who personally had 0 to do with that meddling, get blown up and murdered in front of the entire world to see, by then having their government say “it’s our fault, we’re sorry, it’s time to move on”. This is an online fairy tale fantasy to just think “any sane government would just say it’s our fault and we’re sorry!”

So the US invaded post 9/11. And what exactly did it bring to the US other than loss of life, and trillions wasted? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Afghanistan is now exactly what it was before the invasion. So again, tell me what is the use of getting involved in the affairs of other countries? 
 

Why didn’t the US invade Saudi Arabia who was the actual cause of 9/11? You brought it up saying that the US had to do something. When we have actual concrete evidence that Saudi Arabia was involved in the attack. We also know that multiple countries warned the US of a terrorist attack incoming. But instead the US invades Iraq and Afghanistan. 

[Rep2000]

5 hours ago, Revolution said:

There is nothing we can do. Afghanistan is a country with no future. 

And what exactly did you *do*? America invades a country and then leaves them in disrepair, name a more iconic duo.

This is a very well established pattern of America. Poking their nose into developing countries and feeding its insane war industry complex in the wrong places.

[glitch]

America never should've given the Mujahedeen weapons back in the 80s if we're being honest. Constant interference and meddling has resulted in the situation today and it started long before the invasion.

[ZIVERT]

The Americans wouldn’t have thought to intervene if Russian imperialists in the Soviet Union didn’t try to invade and force a way of life onto Afghans that they didn’t want.

[TiaTamera]

Oooo I love me some politics!

 

i personally believe they shouldn’t have been there in the first place and also should have strategized the safety of the defense weapons beside they left.

 

11 hours ago, SmittenCake said:

This USA allocates substantial funds to seemingly frivolous endeavors, leading me to contemplate the idea of boundless financial resources. Whenever discussions arise about budgets or financial allocations, the question of their source seems almost irrelevant, as if a perpetual well of funds exists. If there was indeed a strategic plan or sincere intention to improve the state of Afghanistan as a nation, why would anyone oppose similar efforts to enhance a country that deserves to be in a more favorable condition?

The US dollar is backed by the military so yes they will spend however much they want, when they want, and don’t care about how it effects the average American citizen because they only care about strengthening the military, coloni- I mean global expansion, harnessing* resources from less developed nations.
 

We (as humans) gave money value. Money doesn’t have real value like natural resources such water, oil, diamonds, and iron so it can quite literally give it endless value as long as we have something with a real value i.e the military that can seize nations, to attach it too.

 

 

[Communion]

16 hours ago, Bears01 said:

So let’s spend another $2 TRILLION dollars on the taxpayers dime trying to fix an unfixable country? 

This framing is gross when the US is illegally holding billions of the Afghan people's money.

 

[Communion]

14 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

It makes no sense to keep troops there and spend our taxpayer dollars on this issue when basically the US presence there was the only thing stopping the Taliban.

 

Unfortunately, western countries cannot help the middle east. This has been shown over and over again for decades, and ultimately the citizens of these countries will have to rise up themselves against their oppressive governments if they want change.

This is one of the worst, most paternalistic and insulting posts ever written on here. Framing the US as a selfless savior trying to help a helpless group of people thousands of miles away for altruistic means, meanwhile the actual US soldiers sent there were running sex trafficking rings of children that made Afghans hate them.

 

"We tried but we failed". No, the US achieved all of the destruction it purposefully set out to do.

 

[Miss Show Business]

3 hours ago, Communion said:

This is one of the worst, most paternalistic and insulting posts ever written on here. Framing the US as a selfless savior trying to help a helpless group of people thousands of miles away for altruistic means, meanwhile the actual US soldiers sent there were running sex trafficking rings of children that made Afghans hate them.

 

"We tried but we failed". No, the US achieved all of the destruction it purposefully set out to do.

 

Oh my God, shut up Are you seriously going to try to frame the Taliban taking over as not a bad thing? Are you kidding me right now?

 

Of all the things you could push back against, this is what you push back against? The fact that women are suffering under the Talibans rule? Your takes are always reeking of eternally online but even this is a new low for you.

Edited September 16, 2023 by Miss Show Business

[GhostBox]

Yes and it took guts for Biden to pull the plug and get it over with. 

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Miss Show Business said:

Oh my God, shut up Are you seriously going to try to frame the Taliban taking over as not a bad thing? Are you kidding me right now?

 

Of all the things you could push back against, this is what you push back against? The fact that women are suffering under the Talibans rule? Your takes are always reeking of eternally online but even this is a new low for you.

"YOURE SIDING WITH THE TALIBAN??"

 

No, you are, and have always been. 

 

 

[BrokenMachine]

18 hours ago, Mr. Mendes said:

Regardless of the causes and any meddling or bad choices the US made pre-9/11—of which there is an inexcusable many—the suggestion that not invading after 9/11 was ever an option is insane. 

Not to sound insensitive, but... did they achieve the goal they had by invading Afganistan tho? If their goal was to end with terrorism they absolutely failed, so an invasion was clearly not an option. At most they just could have followed the ones involved in the 9/11 attack, but no, what they did was to bring misery to the whole people from Afganistan who had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks (aside from the terrorists, obviously).

 

But, if their goal was to extract as many riches as possible from Afganistan, then they did it right, and the whole US citizens fell for the 'war campaign' based in the fear and propaganda surrounding the 9/11 attacks

[Happylittlepunk]

Yes it was one of best things Biden ever did during his presidency. 

[Miss Show Business]

20 minutes ago, Communion said:

"YOURE SIDING WITH THE TALIBAN??"

 

No, you are, and have always been. 

 

 

If "I know you are but what am I" were a person. Never change ATRL user Communion.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Miss Show Business

[John Slayne]

it never should've entered 

 

so yes

[Mr. Mendes]

1 hour ago, BrokenMachine said:

Not to sound insensitive, but... did they achieve the goal they had by invading Afganistan tho? If their goal was to end with terrorism they absolutely failed, so an invasion was clearly not an option. At most they just could have followed the ones involved in the 9/11 attack, but no, what they did was to bring misery to the whole people from Afganistan who had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks (aside from the terrorists, obviously).

 

But, if their goal was to extract as many riches as possible from Afganistan, then they did it right, and the whole US citizens fell for the 'war campaign' based in the fear and propaganda surrounding the 9/11 attacks

Once again, I never argued that it wasn’t botched and done wrong. Not once have I claimed the goal was achieved to any degree of success or even that the military’s actual goals were the ones that they had a right to pursue. 

 

The only thing I have pointed out is that there was never an option to not go to Afghanistan after 9/11. That was never a choice anyone had.

 

What they did when they got there is a completely different matter entirely and has ultimately little to do with the fact that there were legitimate reasons to go. 

 

There were good reasons to go and it was unavoidable that we did. When we got there, it went belly up and those legitimate reasons fell more and more by the wayside to the point that they were after thoughts if they were thoughts at all. Both of those things can be true at once. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Mr. Mendes

[Communion]

3 hours ago, BrokenMachine said:

Not to sound insensitive, but... did they achieve the goal they had by invading Afganistan tho? If their goal was to end with terrorism they absolutely failed, so an invasion was clearly not an option. At most they just could have followed the ones involved in the 9/11 attack, but no, what they did was to bring misery to the whole people from Afganistan who had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks (aside from the terrorists, obviously).

 

But, if their goal was to extract as many riches as possible from Afganistan, then they did it right, and the whole US citizens fell for the 'war campaign' based in the fear and propaganda surrounding the 9/11 attacks

The fact that so many of the "yes" answers are only agreeing with the US not being in Afghanistan via "OF COURSE, HOW MUCH MONEY WERE WE GONNA WASTE ON THOSE PEOPLE??" OR "WE HAD TO ACCEPT THAT THAT PLACE WILL NEVER BE A DESIRABLE DEMOCRACY" - like as though the onus for the suffering experienced by the Afghan people is on the Afghan people themselves - being evidence of this. 

 

I think I saw another user in the thread literally speaking in tropes of the Afghan people being too susceptible~ to EXTREMISM like as though the US wasn't funding said extremism. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Communion

[tshwark]

 

[Bloo]

We should have left a long time ago.