hypochondriac

Are you suggesting that the manner of our leaving was the only possible outcome and that this should have been known two decades earlier and in the fearful climate immediately post 9/11? Read the article. It cites numerous sources debunking your claim that nation building was the initial aim. In fact it specifically refutes the claim and uses wide-ranging accounts to do so. Your "refusal to accept" citing nothing isn't much of a counterpoint is it.

Everything about weapons and warplanes left behind after the event has nothing to do with the original invasion. Making a disaster of a withdrawal doesn't change the feeling of necessity to defeat Al Qaeda at the time. You're still ignoring the consensus of opinion and the climate immediately after 9/11. The article I posted and other similar ones is my evidence that what I'm saying is correct (along with my recollections of what happened over that period.) What can you point to that suggests that American motivations were substantially different to what I've already outlined? And no it's not naive as you tried to claim, it's an accurate retelling of events.

You're just ignoring the facts. You've clearly forgotten what happened at the time and are using hindsight to lecture people on a fictional version of events. Read the article: A collective failure today to recall what the world looked like to Americans after 9/11 has certainly clouded our understanding of the consequential decisions taken in those first years. Today, one reads that Americans went to war “almost gleefully”; that in launching the intervention, President George W. Bush was filled with “optimism” based on the belief that “democracy would flourish when given the opportunity”; that “imperial hubris” led Americans to believe “that we could shape the world in our image using our guns and our money.” Today, we read that even as “the twin towers and the Pentagon were still smoldering, there was a sense among America’s warrior and diplomatic class that history was starting anew for the people of Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world.” This is a myth, or to use the term preferred by The Post’s extensive report on Afghanistan, a “lie.” For better or for worse, it was fear that drove the United States into Afghanistan — fear of another attack by al-Qaeda, which was then firmly ensconced in the Taliban-controlled country; fear of possible attacks by other groups using chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons; fear of other sleeper cells already hiding in the United States. Experts warned that it was just a matter of time before the next big attack. And these fears persisted.

So you're in America in 2002, have a public clamouring for revenge and shaken to your core. Al Qaeda and those who harbour them have to be destroyed and your solution is to not destroy them but engage in some appraisals from afar through bombing? It's ideological nonsense and it wouldn't have destroyed Al Qaeda which was the whole point. The fact that Bush changed things in 2006 to an occupying force seeking to force ideological change as I said doesn't change the fact that that isn't why America went into Afghanistan. Read the article I posted.

Again you're just ignore the climate of post 9/11 America and pretending that they should have either done nothing or carpet bombed Afghanistan. No one has denied that enforcing societal change and now leaving in the way we have done is shameful and a cluster fuck. It simply wasn't an option to not take forceful action against those who perpetrated 9/11. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/26/robert-kagan-afghanistan-americans-forget/ We live history forward, in the chaos of onrushing events, without a clear guide. But we judge history backward, smugly armed with the knowledge of what did happen and uninterested in what might have happened. This partly explains the oscillation of U.S. foreign policy over the decades between periods of high involvement overseas and periods of withdrawal and retrenchment.

Agree with all of that. Good post.

They did defeat Al qaeda. That's pretty unarguable. So your solution would have been to carpet bomb swathes of Afghanistan? How is that preferable to an invasion?

Nah. It's all ridiculous to be honest. I'd like to see Ronaldo and Messi in the same team.

We did it much better than America TBF.

Nope I remember the speech Bush gave in 2006 where he said something along the lines of "loss of freedom anywhere in the world is a threat to America." He used the word freedom countless times and it was remarked on at the time as a marked shift from retaliation for 9/11 to team America style foreign policy trying to dictate to Afghanistan how to behave. You didn't answer the question though, what should post 9/11 America have done to destroy Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that didn't involve invasion?

It was only in about 2006 that Bush started talking about saving women etc. Prior to that it was about removing Al qaeda and making them pay. How else could you have reacted to Al Qaeda? Afghanistan was harbouring these people and they wouldn't have been able to get them out without an invasion. Enforcing societal change came later.

I was simply talking about the climate immediately following 9/11. America had to do something and Afghanistan was who harboured the terrorists. Given the climate I think there was little choice other than to invade them. To do less wasn't really an option.

I really wish psg would just buy him. Ronaldo and Messi on the same team would be great for football.

You said your opinion of him was cha going and he was caught between a rock and a hard place. The suggestion is that he had no option other than to pull out all the troops before civilians which is palpable nonsense.

And that's sort of understandable given what had taken place. It wasn't an option at the time to just do nothing and say nothing to do with us. It very much was to do with America.

Yes the Americans were set to leave. No idea if it would have been done in this manner under Trump. Leaving hasn't been the issue-they should leave-it's the manner of the leaving that's caused this and that's all Biden.

You can't lay it at Trump. Pulling out all the troops at once without leaving any sort of force, without attempting to get any civilians or foreigners out is almost criminally negligent and was only ever going to end one way. Biden needs to own this but all he can do is squirm and try to desperately throw it back at Trump which is pathetic really. Trump has all manner of faults but this is on him.

I think probably worth remembering the political atmosphere after 9/11. It's easy to state this things decades down the line but things were at fever pitch after the terror attack and the consensus was that there had to be reprisals.

Should have voted for Tulsi Gabbard she was the only one who talked any sense that wasn't rambling nonsense. Yang was alright too but a few mental policies.

How they left and what has happened since he became president is entirely on him no matter how much he tries to lay it at Trump's door. If anyone listened to that press conference and doesn't think there is something deeply wrong then you must be blind and deaf.

I don't think you can cite kwp playing at lb against Newport as evidence that we are stronger there. Much much too premature to say we are stronger at CB, no real change in midfield and slightly weaker in attack as you said. So overall no evidence thus far that we are stronger than last year imo.

I think undoubtedly the squad is stronger. Is the first team though? That remains to be seen. All depends on this CB imo.

It's bad for the world not just America. They look like they have absolutely no idea what they are doing and they are going to end up having to bribe the Taliban to let the remaining US nationals leave. Just days ago Biden rejected the notion that US citizens would be stranded. He's a moron.

Christ Biden looks sooo incompetent it's unreal. It's compounded by the fact that he's barely doing any press conferences and is answering hardly any questions. He really looks like he's lost some cognitive function to be honest. I fear for things if China do invade Taiwan.

No it doesn't. Lol. Look at the placing of the dip from the previous year.