The Withdrawal from Afghanistan

chris155au

Active member
No, you just implied it, so that you could deny it when questioned.
According to your inaccurate PERCEPTION I implied it.

"The women benefited from the Western cultural influences, while the MIC benefited from the money.".

The MIC have very little to do with improving the lives of the Afghan women(or people).
As you accurately quoted, I said, "the women benefited from the Western cultural influences, while the MIC benefited from the money." I did NOT say anything about the MIC having to do with improving the lives of the Afghan women. Funny, you say that the MIC had "very little" to do with it, but I go even further than you do - I think that it has precisely NOTHING to do with it! How does it even have a LITTLE to do with it?

In fact, they have everything to do with increasing the suffering of the Afghan people.
How exactly?

Empowering and educating women is only symbolic of a Western culture. NOT a Middle Eastern Islamic Culture.
Yes, our culture is certainly superior. It turns out that
some cultures are better than others. Who knew!

Correct!! So, do you think the goal of our commitment in Afghanistan was to empower and educate women?
Nope, it was merely a consequence of the commitment in Afghanistan.

Why did we sacrifice our soldiers in Afghanistan? What did we hope to achieve in Afghanistan?
To root out terrorism, following 9/11 which was planned there. It didn't work though. We can agree on that much at least.

Who do you think profited the most, the people or the MIC?
Who do I think financially profited? The MIC obviously.

Surely you are not this naïve, are you? Even though it was the Americans who controlled the Afghan National Army(ANA), the Taliban still controlled most of the country.
No, the Americans SUPPORTED the Afghan National Army. They did not CONTROL it.

This article doesn't say that the animals ruled from 2001-August 2021. Just that they rule NOW. Which they do obviously.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
According to your inaccurate PERCEPTION I implied it.
Exactly

As you accurately quoted, I said, "the women benefited from the Western cultural influences, while the MIC benefited from the money." I did NOT say anything about the MIC having to do with improving the lives of the Afghan women. Funny, you say that the MIC had "very little" to do with it, but I go even further than you do - I think that it has precisely NOTHING to do with it! How does it even have a LITTLE to do with it?
No you didn't. You again just implied it. And, no not going down another irrelevant rabbit hole.

How exactly?
Think about it. What is the job of the contractors in the MIC? Is their job to supply weapons and munitions to kill the enemies? Do many civilians become collateral damage? Do you think that suffering would be increased, or decreased, in any war-torn country? Do you think the people losing their sons, daughters, wives, and friends, from the MIC supplied ordinance would be happy, or would be suffering?

Nope, it was merely a consequence of the commitment in Afghanistan.
In what way. What was our commitment in Afghanistan? And what was the consequence of that commitment?

To root out terrorism, following 9/11 which was planned there. It didn't work though. We can agree on that much at least.
Bin laden has been dead for 10 years, Al-Qaida had been dissipated. Do you think that terrorism exists only in Afghanistan? Do we plan on going to over 50 other counties that house terrorist organizations? Including the USA and Britain? This was complete madness, and a waste of innocent lives, and Trillions of dollars. Haven't we learned anything from history?

This article doesn't say that the animals ruled from 2001-August 2021. Just that they rule NOW. Which they do obviously.
Stop making shit up. Who said anything about "ruled"? We were talking about "control". The Taliban still controlled most of Afghanistan, even during the US occupation.
 

chris155au

Active member
According to your inaccurate PERCEPTION I implied it.
I'm glad that you agree that according to your inaccurate PERCEPTION I implied it.

The MIC have very little to do with improving the lives of the Afghan women(or people).
I think that it has precisely NOTHING to do with it! How does it even have a LITTLE to do with it?
No you didn't.
I didn't WHAT? I simply said: I think that it has precisely NOTHING to do with it! How does it even have a LITTLE to do with it?

So, do you think the goal of our commitment in Afghanistan was to empower and educate women?
Nope, it was merely a consequence of the commitment in Afghanistan.
In what way.
Maybe you can understand it if I say: it was merely an outcome of the commitment in Afghanistan. And before you say it - YES there were also NEGATIVE outcomes too.

Bin laden has been dead for 10 years, Al-Qaida had been dissipated.
Uh, yeah... about that... Al-Qaida are BACK! Only ADDING to the human waste over there in Afghanistan. MORE animals!

Do you think that terrorism exists only in Afghanistan? Do we plan on going to over 50 other counties that house terrorist organizations?
No. Did those countries harbour terrorists who attacked our country?

Including the USA and Britain?
Why would we invade the USA and Britain?

Even though it was the Americans who controlled the Afghan National Army(ANA), the Taliban still controlled most of the country. As the article states, it ended as it began.

www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08/15/world/taliban-afghanistan-news
This article doesn't say that the animals controlled the country from 2001-August 2021. Just that they control it NOW. Which they do obviously.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I'm glad that you agree that according to your inaccurate PERCEPTION I implied it.







I didn't WHAT? I simply said: I think that it has precisely NOTHING to do with it! How does it even have a LITTLE to do with it?







Maybe you can understand it if I say: it was merely an outcome of the commitment in Afghanistan. And before you say it - YES there were also NEGATIVE outcomes too.



Uh, yeah... about that... Al-Qaida are BACK! Only ADDING to the human waste over there in Afghanistan. MORE animals!



No. Did those countries harbour terrorists who attacked our country?



Why would we invade the USA and Britain?



This article doesn't say that the animals controlled the country from 2001-August 2021. Just that they control it NOW. Which they do obviously.

I really think that you are just having a go at me. No one lacks this level of comprehension skills. Clearly, you are only here to go the distance, and will never bring any objectively verifiable evidence to this argument, lets again, agree to disagree
 

chris155au

Active member
I really think that you are just having a go at me. No one lacks this level of comprehension skills. Clearly, you are only here to go the distance, and will never bring any objectively verifiable evidence to this argument, lets again, agree to disagree
I just find it a little funny that you think Al-Qaida are "dissipated."
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
You actually think that the Afghan people were able to "decide" that the Taliban is who should be in government before 2001? My goodness.
ultimately, yes. It's up to them to fight for what they want. No one gave the UK, or even the USA their democracy, previous generations fought for that right and until the afghans want it bad enough to fight for it, it'll never happen.
 

chris155au

Active member
ultimately, yes. It's up to them to fight for what they want. No one gave the UK, or even the USA their democracy, previous generations fought for that right and until the afghans want it bad enough to fight for it, it'll never happen.
Alright, maybe that's a fair point actually. I just thought that perhaps you were under the impression that Afghanistan had elections pre-2001.
 

chris155au

Active member
Even though it was the Americans who controlled the Afghan National Army(ANA), the Taliban still controlled most of the country. As the article states, it ended as it began.

This article doesn't say that the animals controlled the country from 2001-August 2021. Just that they control it NOW. Which they do obviously.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Alright, maybe that's a fair point actually. I just thought that perhaps you were under the impression that Afghanistan had elections pre-2001.
i never mentioned elections

It's about who was HARBOURING the rotten animals, not where they came from.
The afghan govt. has the right to give refuge to whoever it likes. Just as the US does. You don't have to agree with who they choose. Going in, dismantling their govt (as shitty as it was) and putting in a puppet govt. and then leaving was never going to end any differently. No matter the time frame between the two. The US could have just bombed the crap out of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and target bombed individuals who they knew aided the terrorists, and still made their point.


You're not being clear on who threw out who.
It's very clear. Go back to the beginning if you are struggling, you even asked another question on the same comment earlier
 
Top