Why are we still in Afghanistan?

[Musburger1]

Mus probably believes that if we leave the ME then all of our problems will go away. The thought is that the US has been too interventionist in the ME and that is the sole cause of Islamic terrorists aiming violence at the US.

I think it is too simplistic of a view, but I do agree that the US should be less interventionist and slower to exert force around the world.

The problems won’t go away, they just won’t compound as quickly.

Despite what we are told, Islamic terrorism isn’t the greatest threat to the US. The collapse of our country via excessive debt, imperial overreach, systemic corruption of our government/bureaucracies, growing wealth inequality, and deterioration of the culture constitutes the greatest threat.

 

[iatrogenic]

Mus probably believes that if we leave the ME then all of our problems will go away. The thought is that the US has been too interventionist in the ME and that is the sole cause of Islamic terrorists aiming violence at the US.

I think it is too simplistic of a view, but I do agree that the US should be less interventionist and slower to exert force around the world.

I agree with you on that , too.

Musberger always reminds me of the old quote, "Any jackass can criticize, and most of them do". He just doesn't have any answers.

 

[Musburger1]

I agree with you on that , too.

Musberger always reminds me of the old quote, "Any jackass can criticize, and most of them do". He just doesn't have any answers.

I’ve enumerated the problems listed above. The answers are beyond my pay grade. Inertia has taken over and probably isn’t reversible. In other words we have entered into predicaments in which there are no solutions; just less poor alternatives.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The justification was to eliminate the threat within the borders which was Al Queda. After that was achieved, regime change and occupation into perpetuity followed.
The primary objective was met. What followed was more imperial disaster, squandered billions on corruption, etc.

Back to the original question? Why are we still there?

Al Qaeda wasn't the only threat. By enabling and harboring Al Qaeda, the Taliban was complicit and supportive of their agenda. Furthermore, if you only take out Al Qaeda but leave the Taliban in place, then the Taliban will enable and harbor the latter-day Al Qaedas of tomorrow. It was fully justifiable to destroy both.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If you believe the Taliban presents an existential threat to the sovereignty of the US, then yes, we should wage war. If you believe that premise is nonsensical, then we are wasting precious resources, tax dollars, and worsening relations with most of the world by continuing to throw money at a non-existent threat.

What existential threat does Russia face in Syria? Who in Syria has attacked the Russian mainland?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mus probably believes that if we leave the ME then all of our problems will go away. The thought is that the US has been too interventionist in the ME and that is the sole cause of Islamic terrorists aiming violence at the US.

I think it is too simplistic of a view, but I do agree that the US should be less interventionist and slower to exert force around the world.

Mus favors power vacuums in the world that Vladimir Putin can step into and exploit.

 

[Musburger1]

Al Qaeda wasn't the only threat. By enabling and harboring Al Qaeda, the Taliban was complicit and supportive of their agenda. Furthermore, if you only take out Al Qaeda but leave the Taliban in place, then the Taliban will enable and harbor the latter-day Al Qaedas of tomorrow. It was fully justifiable to destroy both.

Having a belligerent agenda is insufficient rationale to undertake a multi decade, trillion dollar commitment unless the offending party in question has the means to carry out such an agenda. To suggest the Taliban ever had or could ever obtain such capability is laughable.

Many regimes around the globe would love to see power stripped from the US. Most of these regimes have about as much capability of destroying the US as does the Taliban.
Should we destroy all of them?

 

[Musburger1]

What existential threat does Russia face in Syria? Who in Syria has attacked the Russian mainland?

Unlike the US, Russia does have a very real threat from radical Islam or have you forgotten the Chechen wars? Russia not only shares borders with Muslim nations, it also is home to a substantial number of Muslims. Putin has been very clear from the beginning his intent is too eradicate those terrorists in Syria before they can destabilize Russia. Unlike Bush’s absurd statement that we will fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here, it is actually applicable with respect to Syria.

 

[Musburger1]

What existential threat does Russia face in Syria? Who in Syria has attacked the Russian mainland?

See above.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Having a belligerent agenda is insufficient rationale to undertake a multi decade, trillion dollar commitment unless the offending party in question has the means to carry out such an agenda. To suggest the Taliban ever had or could ever obtain such capability is laughable.

Many regimes around the globe would love to see power stripped from the US. Most of these regimes have about as much capability of destroying the US as does the Taliban.
Should we destroy all of them?

Were you drunk on 9/11? It was more than a "belligerent agenda." They enabled and harbored a terror group that murdered 3000 people on American soil. Yeah, they have the means to hurt the US and the willingness to do so. They're not like other regimes that are hostile to the United States.

Unlike the US, Russia does have a very real threat from radical Islam or have you forgotten the Chechen wars? Russia not only shares borders with Muslim nations, it also is home to a substantial number of Muslims. Putin has been very clear from the beginning his intent is too eradicate those terrorists in Syria before they can destabilize Russia. Unlike Bush’s absurd statement that we will fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here, it is actually applicable with respect to Syria.

The Chechen Wars are a threat from radical Islam, but 9/11 isn't? You're out of your mind, Mus. And this doesn't answer the question. Who in Syria is threatening to attack Russia? (By the way, I'm not arguing that they have no basis for being there. I'm just trying to make you show a little consistency.)

 

[Musburger1]

Were you drunk on 9/11? It was more than a "belligerent agenda." They enabled and harbored a terror group that murdered 3000 people on American soil. Yeah, they have the means to hurt the US and the willingness to do so. They're not like other regimes that are hostile to the United States.



The Chechen Wars are a threat from radical Islam, but 9/11 isn't? You're out of your mind, Mus. And this doesn't answer the question. Who in Syria is threatening to attack Russia? (By the way, I'm not arguing that they have no basis for being there. I'm just trying to make you show a little consistency.)

First of all, 9-11 was not a state action. But if you wish to pin the blame on a state, why not pin the blame on the state most responsible for what happened? That would be our good ally Saudi Arabia. Are you drunk?

There are several differences between the 9-11 terror act and the Chechen wars.

The first was a coordinated terror attack by non-state actors. These terrorists were dependent on outside funding. They did not have access to conventional arms. In fact, they had to use US assets (passenger jets) to carry out the attack.

The Chechen Wars occurred when a region inside Russia separated and actually furnished state supported armaments in what amounted to a secession type of war, much like when the Confederacy left the Union. Part of the battle tactics however, included terror attacks on the civilians such as the infamous school and apartment hostage and bombing scenarios.

Also, the US, Turkey, and the Saudis have funded and supplied arms to terrorists which reside in the proximity of Russia's borders. Several Chechens are actually fighting on the side of ISIS and other terror groups inside of Syria. Should they return to Russia, they will use their training and arms to wreak havoc. No such parallel exists in the case of 9-11.

I'm not minimizing the devastation caused by 9-11. I'm simply pointing out that there is no equivalence and the two situations should not be handled in the same way.

But I don't believe for a minute that the reaction to 9-11 was specifically geared toward fighting terrorism. It was a bridge using faulty logic to legitimize the invasion and occupation of Iraq which led to a chain reaction that has destabilized the Middle East and led to more terrorism. Those of you who chearlead for more war and occupation only encourage the bankrupcy of our nation and unite other nations opposing our actions.

 

[bystander]

My recollection:

9/11 happened, bin Laden was in Afghanistan and we said hand him over, the Taliban said, "Come and Take It" and we did:

Oh, Bush said to Saddam, "Give me bin Laden"
Saddam said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
Bush said, "No" Saddam say, "Ask the Taliban"
Bush say, "I'll go ahead and ask him, Saddam, but
The next time you see me comin', you better run"
General Tom said, "Where d'you want this killin' done?"
Bush said, "Out in Afghaniston"

With respect to Bob Dylan (Highway 61 Revisited)

Then came Iraq. It was based upon the pre-text of WMD as stated in speeches given by Bush and Cheney (and apparently believed by Hillary Clinton). They said it without any ambiguity. That's what the American people were told. Later we found out there weren't any. But I think the American public had been set up to believe it because Bill Clinton and Al Gore among others also made strong speeches about Hussein and the WMD (a bi-partisan effort to warn us and it also seemed as if Hussein was evasive during the inspections; but now I think he was evasive in order to make Iraq think he was stronger than he really was). It is also my belief that 9/11 freaked enough people out that they figured that Hussein (just another "towel-head") would do it too if he could; so F him, let's roll. Bush/Cheney tried to say Iraq/Hussein was involved in 9/11 through some wordplay (not as firm as the WMD declaration) that in reality (I remember some of the comments) was more of a "If we don't take him out then we'll have more 9/11's."

I have no doubt that our military presence around the world is due more to our economic interests than our national security concerns (an invasion or preventing a first-strike).

The fact is, we attacked Iraq over WMD but not North Korea. That should open a lot of eyes.

 

[Mr. Deez]

First of all, 9-11 was not a state action. But if you wish to pin the blame on a state,

Because I don't mindlessly "wish" to blame a state. A state (the Taliban-governed Afghanistan) was was effectively giving Al Qaeda a state. Knowing the group's acts of terrorism throughout the '90s and on 9/11, the Taliban granted Al Qaeda a place to plot, organize, train, and execute acts of terror. And of course, after 9/11 they tried to prevent Al Qaeda's leadership from capture and justice. We were in every sense justified in taking them out - more justified than we've been at attacking anybody since Japan in 1941 (including Germany).

why not pin the blame on the state most responsible for what happened? That would be our good ally Saudi Arabia. Are you drunk?

If Saudi Arabia had a role in 9/11, that's a reason to take action against Saudi Arabia. It's not a reason not to take action against the Taliban.

There are several differences between the 9-11 terror act and the Chechen wars

Nobody said they were similar or that they should be handled the same way.

Several Chechens are actually fighting on the side of ISIS and other terror groups inside of Syria. Should they return to Russia, they will use their training and arms to wreak havoc. No such
parallel exists in the case of 9-11.

Several people from all over the world (including the United States) have joined ISIS. Under that standard, you have no basis to complain about hardly anybody being in Syria.

The point is that you're a blatant hypocrite on this issue. You think we're out of line for attacking a regime that harbored the 9/11 attackers. This isn't speculation. These are acts of terrorism that have already occurred. However, you think it's OK for Russia to intervene in the Syrian civil war based on the speculation that Chechen ISIS fighters might in the future go attack Russia. The double standard is laughable even for you. (By the way I don't think Russia is out of line for going into Syria.)

But I don't believe for a minute that the reaction to 9-11 was specifically geared toward fighting terrorism.

What a shock.

 

[Musburger1]

“Several people from all over the world (including the United States) have joined ISIS. Under that standard, you have no basis to complain about hardly anybody being in Syria.“
First of all, ISIS was origianally directed toward Syria (unofficially) by the United States. It was Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran that took up the battle against ISIS. It wasn’t until the Kurds supplanted ISIS as a US proxy that ISIS was seriously targeted in Syria by the US. And even now, several independent sources report ISIS fighters have been transported by US helicopters out of danger.

The US is in Syria illegally. The rationalizations (fighting ISIS) for being there are nothing more than lies lapped up by the ignorant public (that would include yourself and those of like mindset).

Trying to equate the US mission to Russia’s mission in terms of fighting ISiS is absurd. It was Russia that exposed the oil rat line from Syria into Turkey which the US purposely ignored. It was Russia that offered numerous times to collaborate with the US to fight ISIS but the US rejected. It is you who is truly the hypocrite.

 

[Musburger1]

“Because I don't mindlessly "wish" to blame a state. A state (the Taliban-governed Afghanistan) was was effectively giving Al Qaeda a state. Knowing the group's acts of terrorism throughout the '90s and on 9/11, the Taliban granted Al Qaeda a place to plot, organize, train, and execute acts of terror. And of course, after 9/11 they tried to prevent Al Qaeda's leadership from capture and justice. We were in every sense justified in taking them out - more justified than we've been at attacking anybody since Japan in 1941 (including Germany).”

Do I need to remind you who brought and armed Islamic jihadists to Afghanistan in the first place and then took on the identity of Al Queda?

Hint: The answer isn’t Putin.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mus,

This is mostly immaterial smack talk and speculation by you. You can rationalize it anyway you want, but I think most sensible people can see your hypocrisy here. I didn't expect you to see it or to acknowledge it if you did see it.

 

[Musburger1]

Speculation? Give an example in my last two replies of speculation.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The rationalizations (fighting ISIS) for being there are nothing more than lies lapped up by the ignorant public (that would include yourself and those of like mindset).

Here's a pretty easy one.

 

[Musburger1]

Here's a pretty easy one.

Input the following in your search engine:
us airlifts isis commanders

Keep in mind plan A was to overthrow Assad.
Plan B was to carve up Syria. Currently plan B is in effect. When it was apparent Assad would not be overthrown ISIS was discarded. Even now as Trump implies the US will pull out of Syria soon, the US in sending in more troops and military hardware. The French are also illegally building up forces inside Syria. None of this is speculation. It’s facts on the ground that have played out and continue to be played out. The government mouthpieces referred to as MSM refuse to enlighten the public and the general public itself doesn’t want to know the truth anyway.