902
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
902 points (100.0% liked)
World News
38979 readers
2822 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Dude, you should probably read up on the history of Afghanistan before you start saying "America is to blame".
I mean, yeah... America IS to blame... among others. And it goes back WAY further than 20 some odd years.
Important reminder that the USA financed the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war. See Operation Cyclone.
Hell, see Rambo 3.
Important reminder that in that war, Russia was yet again the invader
Sort of, the local communists, probably without soviet knowledge or support, overthrew the local military dictator. They started unpopular reforms like gender equality and social ownership, people got very unhappy about that, the situation devolved into a civil war and the Soviets decided to intervene to support the Afghan communists.
Not quite a straight invasion like Ukraine and probably more justified than the US intervention.
The soviets didn't even like them iirc. Very sad situation all round.
Yep, the worst religious radical is better than the best atheist. Cuz they're commies and fuck that.
Lets give these guys some guns, I'm sure it won't backfire.
They weren't good because they were reds. They weren't even really RU/SU-aligned. They were good because they were progressive and also happened to be neutral in terms of foreign affairs. But they learnt that the US funded the taliban and that's why the reds were invited in. The US got word. And disaster ensued.
Important reminder that the Mujahideen fractured, and one of the factions went on to become terrorists. Not the entire group.
Still means the USA financed the training of the part of the faction that split.
This is also similar to ISIS, it's almost like we don't mind the fallout if it justifies further military spending to fight the GWOT.
The resources you're referring to during the first decade were not used for "fiddling", but well-spent on capturing and killing bin Laden and negating the threat of al-Qaeda. The occupation of Afghanistan following the raid on bin-Laden continued to be costly without reaping similar tangible rewards and that's all the more reason for the US to subsequently withdraw from Afghanistan.
The US didn't "lose Afghanistan", they stopped pouring resources and lives into a very costly and difficult occupation without significant local support that didn't make any sense or reap any benefit after achieving their stated goals of capturing and killing bin laden and dismantling al-Qaeda.
Nobody has forgotten Afghanistan, there just isn't a foreign power actively occupying and policing their country anymore.
If you believe that the war was one man's and not the nation's, then the US obviously didn't lose any war according to your definition.
You're making broad political assumptions based on the physical appearance of George Bush, which is not a very convincing argument.
You allege bush had "intel", that he didn't listen to anybody, and he felt he had all the answers, but you aren't providing a thesis, evidence, context, examples, or drawing any conclusions from these assumptions. You're just complaining about assumptions you made up.
Saying "all we had to do was go to Pakistan, and we would've gotten Osama a lot earlier" is probably the least-sensical assumption you're making.
That was the whole point of finding him, his whereabouts were unknown.
You might as well get angry at homicide detectives for finding killers. "Gee, you know if you just went straight to the murderer:s house that you didn't know the location of, you would have arrested him much sooner. Don't know why you bothered with all those clues and evidence for years and didn't just meet him at his hiding spot right away."
They had to find bin laden before they knew where he was. Bin laden was in something like a half dozen different safe houses in an area of the size of Texas, supported and protected by a terrorist organization spread across more than two countries that by themselves added up to the size of Mexico, and most of the hijackers of the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia.
No, they were just overthrown by a handful of civilians with guns and thrown out of the country. Totally no loss at all /s
Let me guess, the US also didn't lose the war in Vietnam, but decided to just leave the country?
In Vietnam, the stated US goal was to stop the Communist takeover of Vietnam as a means to "stop communism", which is ludicrous and vague and didn't work. I have to disagree with you and say the US military lost Vietnam since they did so poorly militarily and didn't achieve what they set out to.
In Afghanistan, they had specific goals of capturing and killing bin Laden and dismantling al Qaeda, two specific goals that were achieved while dominating the country militarily. So yes, the US "won" Afghanistan in that they achieved both of their goals and did well militarily.
I guess you're arguing that since communism didn't spread out from Vietnam following US military intervention, the US "won" Vietnam, but the US military didn't succeed in any practical sense or achieve anything tangible.
Assange warned us that the war was not to be won. It was to be continually fought.
Kinda like Ukraine now.
Ukraine's choices are in its own hands.
Somehow, this chuckles me. What if Americans lose their country in less than a week?