21–30 of 90 posts
The Taliban regime is going to be hostile to women. It'll be a return to violence, executions, and feudalism. Yet I see a lot of liberals that have no problem with a Taliban takeover and would rather see a US withdrawal. I'm a liberal person, but I think Taliban takeover is a horrific outcome. What's the argument / angle here? Furthermore, it seems to open the geopolitical sphere for China to step into the vacuum. It…
The Taliban regime is going to be hostile to women. It'll be a return to violence, executions, and feudalism. Yet I see a lot of liberals that have no problem with a Taliban takeover and would rather see a US withdrawal. I'm a liberal person, but I think Taliban takeover is a horrific outcome. What's the argument / angle here? Furthermore, it seems to open the geopolitical sphere for China to step into the vacuum. It…
You can keep letting the Afghan soldiers do the fighting as that is what is politically necessary, but give them a pile of support on the rear end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step in and do what? Occupy the country indefinitely? How many decades will it take for Afghanistan to stop being Afghanistan?
Why not? Americans haven't been engaged in ground combat operations for years now outside of special forces. They were just providing the weapons, logistics, training, and air power to contain the Taliban. That seems reasonably sustainable. Make it into South Korea with airstrikes.
So, impossible if we don’t get others on board, among Arab countries in general, perhaps China or Russia too.
Is it possible the country has become so heavily dependent on western money that insurgence happens to bring back the flow of cash from returning western military presence there?
It’s really a question, I’m not knowledgeable.
War is stupid.
Is it possible the country has become so heavily dependent on western money that insurgence happens to bring back the flow of cash from returning western military presence there?
Is it possible that it’s just a proxy war? I imagine for 1 rouble invested by Russia arming the Talibans, it costs $10 to the West if we want to do something? It’s really a question, I’m not knowledgeable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize that the Afghan people by and large do not want Taliban rule, right? Very few want to be ruled by a violent, oppressive theocracy. Personally I would like the US to leave Afghanistan as well, but I have sympathy for the people who may have to suffer Taliban rule. Ideally the international or at least regional community would step in.
I agree, my brother! The idea that these Muslims could govern themselves leaves me in tears of laughter and what they really need to sort them out is an American colonial presence. This failed 20 year US strategy can only work out great in the long term for the people of Afghanistan! ... and without the dripping sarcasm, in all seriousness, the US has been destabilising the Middle East for decades and will happily ov…
The Taliban regime is going to be hostile to women. It'll be a return to violence, executions, and feudalism. Yet I see a lot of liberals that have no problem with a Taliban takeover and would rather see a US withdrawal. I'm a liberal person, but I think Taliban takeover is a horrific outcome. What's the argument / angle here? Furthermore, it seems to open the geopolitical sphere for China to step into the vacuum. It…
Undoubtedly the general Afghan populace does not look forward to Taliban rule, but a big part of the problem is the Afghan government receiving all of this aid seems both corrupt & incompetent, unable to make the best use of the enormous resources put at their disposal.
In my eyes the withdrawal is an admission that 20 years of US occupation have not been able to resolve these issues, and trying to fight a war on behalf of a country whose government takes little interest in the welfare of its own people is close to impossible.
I think that about the best we can hope for is that going it alone with the prospect of losing the fruits of their corruption to the Taliban will encourage Afghan leadership to act. At least those leaders that won't be able to flee the country with their wealth intact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Americans haven't been engaged in ground combat operations for years now outside of special forces. They were just providing the weapons, logistics, training, and air power to contain the Taliban. That seems reasonably sustainable. Make it into South Korea with airstrikes.
Afghanistan is about the same size as Texas, permanent occupation is technically manageable. However, it would bring hate upon the US. It’s also a proxy-war with Russia, who might be funding the opposite side, so the costs to colonization are not just occupation, but hedging the spendings of all other countries who don’t want USA to occupy the zone. So, impossible if we don’t get others on board, among Arab countries…
If Afghans want US protection that doesn’t require boots on the ground, that seems reasonable considering capabilities already available. “Peace through superior firepower.”
Is it possible the country has become so heavily dependent on western money that insurgence happens to bring back the flow of cash from returning western military presence there?
Is it possible that it’s just a proxy war? I imagine for 1 rouble invested by Russia arming the Talibans, it costs $10 to the West if we want to do something? It’s really a question, I’m not knowledgeable.