Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

Post by rayiner » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #158

koheripbal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this i…

> IMO, "nation building" is always an impossible mission. The objective should have been to attack, destroy the enemy, and leave - immediately. Punishing the sponsors of the 9/11 attacks, not entrenching an ideological split. That's bollocks. I'm German, had the Allied Powers followed the Morgenthau plan Germany would be essentially an Afghanistan today - an agro state and nothing more. But you all followed through w…

Post by endisneigh » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #76

You also shouldn't forget to hold the other powers to account that made it impossible to have peace in Afghanistan. Russia put out bounties on US soldiers, Iran armed the Taliban, Pakistan sheltered them and I'm sure China had their fingers in there just as well. The Taliban have never been the legitimate, much less the benevolent government of the Afghan people. If you've seen "The Handmaid's Tale" you have a genera…

Post by throwaway0a5e » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #178

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this sort of thinking is exactly how we wound up stuck there for 20yr. Voter block A wants to bomb them back to the stone age and leave. Voter block B won't tolerate wrecking the place without some pretext of "helping the people" or whatever that means. So the compromise is to wreck the nation then spend 20yr pushing food around our plate as though we're actually going to rebuild it until voter block B is satisfi…

Is it entirely unthinkable to not invade instead?

Post by vxNsr » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:47 PM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #88

zozbot234 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been any legitimate, benevolent government there in living memory? Perhaps they're simply better off with a king, much like the frogs in Aesop's tale.

No, there weren't. The one king which ran off to Italy was somewhat moderately legitimate, and moderately popular, but not enough to survive having his key people assassinated, nor to gain meaningful foreign assistance (USA denied his plea to save his ass from communists.) It were Britishers who started this mess 140 years ago, and they must be the ones to fix this.

Post by hulitu » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #87

AmericanChopper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. Among those who go along with it, they tend to stop once it creates an issue for them. The ICC primarily prosecutes the war crimes of war losers. They’ve convicted some Nazis, some Serbs, and a few African war lords here and there. But it’s silly to presume they have authority over any nation…

> But it’s silly to presume they have authority over any nation that exists with even a modicum of national security. That's because most nations do have an established practice of putting their own war criminals on trial. It's good for building trust, which is quite beneficial in the longer run. The U.S. have slipped somewhat, but then they make up for that by literally paying for much of the civilized world's secur…