More troops headed to Afghanistan after 17 years

[babycart]

None of this means Afghanistan isn't a mess that needs guidance, strong guidance. Afghanistan left to itself has an established history of fomenting terrorism.
It exists and it can't be ignored.

Hell, Saudi Arabia has a better track record of formenting terrorism. Why the fuck is it ignored?

Heh, if Afghanistan was an OPEC country, all this shit about needing to teach them a lesson wouldn't happen.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Hell, Saudi Arabia has a better track record of formenting terrorism. Why the fuck is it ignored?

Heh, if Afghanistan was an OPEC country, all this shit about needing to teach them a lesson wouldn't happen.

Many of the members and soldiers of AQ are SA born, true. But they didn't train there, and there aren't terror camps in SA. Fundamentalists with a mind for terrorism move to camp countries, of which there were many but now are fewer for some mysterious reason. You could bring up the Jordanian terrorists or any number of other countries with active AQ branches or affiliates.

 

[OCGSC]

Why are they trying to control people that don't want to be told what to do? That is why the call Afghanistan the graveyard of empires.

 

[lfd0311]

I mean....the onus should be on the United States to manage the Taliban, since it was the United States, along with its allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (then colloquially known as New Saudi Arabia, or Spicy Saudi Arabia), that created the Taliban to counter Soviet occupation.

Sigh. Nope. Trotsky calling plays straight from the Lefty playbook as usual.

 

[Trotsky]

Sigh. Nope. Trotsky calling plays straight from the Lefty playbook as usual.

The "Lefty playbook" would read that the US should get the fuck out ASAP and never come back.

When was the last time you read our playbook?

 

[babycart]

Many of the members and soldiers of AQ are SA born, true. But they didn't train there, and there aren't terror camps in SA. Fundamentalists with a mind for terrorism move to camp countries, of which there were many but now are fewer for some mysterious reason. You could bring up the Jordanian terrorists or any number of other countries with active AQ branches or affiliates.

You're joking right? Terrorism requires money and motivation (aka doctrine). You're telling me these numbnuts acquired them in Afghan training camps? Heh, would the American public be scared if dirt-poor afghan terrorists were waving sticks and clubs? Don't think so. Hell damn, San Diego and Florida flight schools trained the 9/11 terrorists. let's bomb them as well.

 

[lfd0311]

The "Lefty playbook" would read that the US should get the fuck out ASAP and never come back.

When was the last time you read our playbook?

Ah.... 2011, when you called that exact same play and withdrew from Iraq with no stable government in place.... Where were you?

 

[Cid]

None of which means Afghanis have their country under control with a stable government and a grip on the terrorist camps problem. We had to take care of that rat's nest. When we demanded they turn over UBL they flipped us off.

No they didn't.

They just asked for evidence of guilt to be presented to them before they handed one of their citizens over to be murdered by your country. It was a reasonable request that any self respecting country would do to protect one of it's citizens from a pack of overzealous cunts.

Being the psychopaths that you are you deemed that poor country asking for evidence to be the middle finger and proceeded to slaughter them in the hundreds of thousands.


Not to mention the reason you refer to their country as a rats nets is because you used them to start a proxy war against your enemies the soviets which lasted 10 years, killed between 500k-2million people, displaced 5 million all because you wanted to win the cold war without doing it yourself.

You used these people and ran a fucking freight train on their country killing millions and you have to nerve to call them a threat to the world?

That's a cunts act. A deluded, hypocritical cunts act.

 

[Trotsky]

Ah.... 2011, when you called that exact same play and withdrew from Iraq with no stable government in place.... Where were you?

Soooo, you're now conceding that your first statement about a generic leftist position was dumb and inaccurate? Anyways, I personally didn't have enough knowledge to hold a strong opinion on the matter. But, yes, I believe that was the call from the left - to cease occupation.

But why are you changing the subject? Is this the part where you start incessantly asking meandering question because you just want to pester?

 

[lfd0311]

Soooo, you're now conceding that your first statement about a generic leftist position was dumb and inaccurate?

Uh.... What? What kind of games are we trying to play here today, Trotsky?

Anyways, I personally didn't have enough knowledge to hold a strong opinion on the matter. But, yes, I believe that was the call from the left - to cease occupation.

That didn't stop you from clearly having a super strong one until I pointed out how that worked out the last time, a mere 7 years ago, that "the call from the left" was heeded, did it? Again, we just going to play games all day?

But why are you changing the subject? Is this the part where you start incessantly asking meandering question because you just want to pester?

LOL, this sums up every conversation I've ever had with you. I didn't change the subject. You did.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

That's not what I asked you. Are you from a country that doesn't have to deal with terrorism?

You having trouble reading?
Literally, the first syllable of my reply answered your question.
Unlike you, i am not doing my level best to avoid answering questions.

 

[Trotsky]

Uh.... What? What kind of games are we trying to play here today, Trotsky?



That didn't stop you from clearly having a super strong one until I pointed out how that worked out the last time, a mere 7 years ago, that "the call from the left" was heeded, did it? Again, we just going to play games all day?



LOL, this sums up every conversation I've ever had with you. I didn't change the subject. You did.

(i) You said my explanation for occupation was typical of the left.
(ii) I provided that the standard leftist response was the opposite - against my explanation
(ii) You then took issue with that anti-occupation position.

So you're simultaneously bitching about completely diametrical positions while also ascribing both of them to the left as being standard-issue.

You're an annoying person, and you're looking to needlessly bicker. I won't be entertaining you any further.

 

[lfd0311]

No they didn't.

They just asked for evidence of guilt to be presented to them before they handed one of their citizens over to be murdered by your country. It was a reasonable request that any self respecting country would do to protect one of it's citizens from a pack of overzealous cunts.

Being the psychopaths that you are you deemed that poor country asking for evidence to be the middle finger and proceeded to slaughter them in the hundreds of thousands.


Not to mention the reason you refer to their country as a rats nets is because you used them to start a proxy war against your enemies the soviets which lasted 10 years, killed between 500k-2million people, displaced 5 million all because you wanted to win the cold war without doing it yourself.

You used these people and ran a fucking freight train on their country killing millions and you have to nerve to call them a threat to the world?

That's a cunts act. A deluded, hypocritical cunts act.

This is the worst post I've ever seen. Osama Bin Laden is now an "Afghani Citizen". This is rich.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

You having trouble reading?
Literally, the first syllable of my reply answered your question.
Unlike you, i am not doing my level best to avoid answering questions.

I didn't ask you if your country has "actual problems", I asked if your country has terrorism problems. Can't you read?

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Well, while I am not saying that I agree with continued occupation, I certainly understand the ethos of continued responsibility: that we should return them to the position that they would be in if not for our interference. If not for US funding and empowerment of fundamentalist Sunni groups, it seems pretty unlikely something like the Taliban would have taken hold, at least in its full glory. There's no reason that the religious climate there should be dissimilar to, say, Turkmenistan, instead of similar to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

So... empty sentiment?

Heaven save us from america's commitment to her responsibilities.

 

[lfd0311]

(i) You said my explanation for occupation was typical of the left.
(ii) I provided that the standard leftist response was the opposite - against my explanation
(ii) You then took issue with that anti-occupation position.

So you're simultaneously bitching about completely diametrical positions while also ascribing both of them to the left as being standard-issue.

You're an annoying person, and you're looking to needlessly bicker. I won't be entertaining you any further.

1.) I was laughing at your go to Leftist argument of "The United States created the Taliban to destroy the Soviet Union". No. It did not. That's why I wrote "Nope". To make a blanket statement like that takes a detachment and lack of knowledge of the subject we're talking about. The US funded many different groups of Mujahadeen fighters. There wasn't a real centralized resistence. Much of our money went to Ahmad Shah Massoud, who became the leader of the what would eventually become known as the Northern Alliance, what is today known as the current Afghani Government. Yes, we absolutely funded some groups that went on to become members of the Taliban. To claim that the US "created" the Taliban is flat out absurd. The war had been going on for nearly 7 years before the US even began funding Jihadi fighters or providing them with weapons.


2.) I pointed out that that position has worked so well in the past, yet here you are still preaching it. So I can see why I'm annoying. You're constantly trying to pretend to be a Liberal intellectual on the internet, and I constantly crush your arguments and laugh at you.

 

[Trotsky]

So... empty sentiment?

Heaven save us from america's commitment to her responsibilities.

I'm not sure what you're asking me. I'm just providing the moral justification for continued involvement in the country. Also, more realistically, in terms of geopolitics, it just isn't a bright spot for the United States' reputation that the country fared better under Soviet control than after US liberation.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

1.) I was laughing at your go to Leftist argument of "The United States created the Taliban to destroy the Soviet Union". No. It did not. That's why I wrote "Nope". To make a blanket statement like that takes a detachment and lack of knowledge of the subject we're talking about. The US funded many different groups of Mujahadeen fighters. There wasn't a real centralized resistence. Much of our money went to Ahmad Shah Massoud, who became the leader of the what would eventually become known as the Northern Alliance, what is today known as the current Afghani Government. Yes, we absolutely funded some groups that went on to become members of the Taliban. To claim that the US "created" the Taliban is flat out absurd. The war had been going on for nearly 7 years before the US even began funding Jihadi fighters or providing them with weapons.


2.) I pointed out that that position has worked so well in the past, yet here you are still preaching it. So I can see why I'm annoying. You're constantly trying to pretend to be a Liberal intellectual on the internet, and I constantly crush your arguments and laugh at you.

Oversimplification is popular these days

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I didn't ask you if your country has "actual problems", I asked if your country has terrorism problems. Can't you read?

Good lord.

Are you from a country that doesn't have to deal with terrorism?

Yep.

Don't bother responding again. I can tell the quality I'll be getting.

 

[Trotsky]

1.) I was laughing at your go to Leftist argument of "The United States created the Taliban to destroy the Soviet Union". No. It did not. That's why I wrote "Nope". To make a blanket statement like that takes a detachment and lack of knowledge of the subject we're talking about. The US funded many different groups of Mujahadeen fighters. There wasn't a real centralized resistence. Much of our money went to Ahmad Shah Massoud, who became the leader of the what would eventually become known as the Northern Alliance, what is today known as the current Afghani Government. Yes, we absolutely funded some groups that went on to become members of the Taliban. To claim that the US "created" the Taliban is flat out absurd. The war had been going on for nearly 7 years before the US even began funding Jihadi fighters or providing them with weapons.

So you agree that we provided massive financial and logistical support to empower and organize the beginnings of the Taliban and provided them inroads toward their later assumption of power.

Thank you. Semantics aside, I appreciate that you provide such sterling support for my post.

2.) I pointed out that that position has worked so well in the past, yet here you are still preaching it.

Except I wasn't preaching it. As we've already stated, I was in fact advocating for the opposite of that position: continued involvement. Jesus, you're a fucking moron.

So I can see why I'm annoying. You're constantly trying to pretend to be a Liberal intellectual on the internet, and I constantly crush your arguments and laugh at you.

LOL @ you literally ever crushing anyone's argument on this forum. You're consistently one of the most incoherent, uninformed, and wildly immature posters on this forum. And, worst of all, your only function on the forum is to bait your betters into exchanges like this where you rattle off long and contradictory posts until, eventually, the other person stops replying and you feel like you've won for having outlasted them with your stupidity.