Hard to swallow pills: The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

All the blood & treasure lost.
To what end.....

I can't accept that this country's citizens are willing to tear this nation asunder for political power.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

We don't have the stomach anymore for what has to happen to defeat folks like the taliban.

---

Not if it is covered on news. You have to deal with that first. FDR actually set strict rules -- most don't hear about it.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Hard to swallow pills: The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

---

Strange statement, follow up?

rgag12 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Hard to swallow pills: The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

---

Strange statement, follow up?

---

Elements of them were even meeting with OBL in mid-November 2001. They knew where he was and were not playing ball. That's enough to topple the regime. Our Sept 20, 2001 terms were clear.

titan said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Hard to swallow pills: The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

---

Oh yes they did. They continued to let AQ hide after it despite an ultimatum. That along rated their toppling on the spot.

---

Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden too when he was captured, we didn't go to war with themwe just went in a got him. As bad as the Taliban is, the alternative is worse and why would they give two $#!+s about helping us fight Al Qaeda?

Hell, the CIA did 10 times more to aid Al Qaeda in Syria and Norther Africa than the Taliban ever did.

Well there's genocide and be hearing occurring all over Africa and there's no msm news on that. I think it's just a part of reality that this occurs in dump of countries like Afghanistan etc

nu awlins ag said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

titan said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Hard to swallow pills: The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

---

Oh yes they did. They continued to let AQ hide after it despite an ultimatum. That along rated their toppling on the spot.

---

Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden too when he was captured, we didn't go to war with themwe just went in a got him. As bad as the Taliban is, the alternative is worse and why would they give two $#!+s about helping us fight Al Qaeda?

Hell, the CIA did 10 times more to aid Al Qaeda in Syria and Norther Africa than the Taliban ever did.

---

Dude, politely STFU. You have no clue..seriously.

---

Keep lying to yourself.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

titan said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Hard to swallow pills: The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

---

Oh yes they did. They continued to let AQ hide after it despite an ultimatum. That along rated their toppling on the spot.

---

Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden too when he was captured, we didn't go to war with themwe just went in a got him. As bad as the Taliban is, the alternative is worse and why would they give two $#!+s about helping us fight Al Qaeda?

Hell, the CIA did 10 times more to aid Al Qaeda in Syria and Norther Africa than the Taliban ever did.

---

I didn't say the Bush admin was coherent- --it wasn't. OBL would not still have been in Pakistan as late as 2011 if the 9/20/01 ultimatum had been properly enforced. But plenty has come out since then that opportunities were passed up even after the escape from Tora Bora.

So it is the first that was done right; toppling for harboring him, and the second -- not toppling for harboring him later, that was done wrong. But the Bush admin absolutely squandered all coherency going forward from its `Pearl Harbor' moment. If you can imagine FDR having half the country against the war by 1943 you get a good idea how bad their pr and presentation of war aims were.

And I agree that the CIA had as much to do with the problem. That's separate from having the gall to continue to harbor OBL after 9/11. Keep it simple.

pdc093 said:

---

All the blood & treasure lost.
To what end.....

I can't accept that this country's citizens are willing to tear this nation asunder for political power.

---

Only the middle and poor class lost blood and treasure. Defense contractors, lobbyists and politicians got rich. A billion dollars a day spent on the war effort...

Very sad.



Hey Bushy, are you disturbed at all the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

"I can't remember what I was doing, but ... I was sick to my stomach ... to see our nation's Capitol being stormed by hostile forces," Bush said in an interview with The Texas Tribune as part of the SXSW virtual festival that was recorded February 24 and made public Thursday. "And it really disturbed me to the point where I did put out a statement, and I'm still disturbed when I think about it." Link

---

[url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/18/politics/george-bush-capitol-insurrection/index.html][/url]

He definitely regrets the life lost, and has contributed very much to various causes, and even done paintings related to the veterans charities.

However, on the war itself, he once gave an interview that said `had no regrets'. That was kind of disturbing.

Even victorious leaders can find something they would do otherwise, maybe make Y a little less costly, etc. Much less failed efforts.

nu awlins ag said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

titan said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Hard to swallow pills: The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

---

Oh yes they did. They continued to let AQ hide after it despite an ultimatum. That along rated their toppling on the spot.

---

Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden too when he was captured, we didn't go to war with themwe just went in a got him. As bad as the Taliban is, the alternative is worse and why would they give two $#!+s about helping us fight Al Qaeda?

Hell, the CIA did 10 times more to aid Al Qaeda in Syria and Norther Africa than the Taliban ever did.

---

Dude, politely STFU. You have no clue..seriously.

---

Keep lying to yourself.

---

Ok. I'll take your blabbering over a Lt. Col with 27 years of combat flight experience and 8 years working in counterterrorism. You're right, you know more than me..

Sorry he has 12 years of counterterrorism experience solely in the Middle East. His squadron was the first to strike after 11 September, but go on.

---

In other words not youdo a little research on your own. You might start with "Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan" by Scott Horton. He could chew up and spit out your Lt Col friend when it comes to info about American wars.

Meanwhile we went into debt with China and spent $1 trillion on that place.

Yeah we clearly got our $1 trillion dollars worth out of that little escapade. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is just pissed Richard Branson is spending his own money to launch a little plane to the edge of space.

Win At Life said:

---

When 85% of the men in a country are incorrigible murderers and rapists, to whom do you turn the country over when you leave?

---

You tell the women to either give up or do a lethal version of Lysistrata and lead the reform once and for all. They are the only ones that could force change there.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

titan said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Hard to swallow pills: The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

---

Oh yes they did. They continued to let AQ hide after it despite an ultimatum. That along rated their toppling on the spot.

---

Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden too when he was captured, we didn't go to war with themwe just went in a got him. As bad as the Taliban is, the alternative is worse and why would they give two $#!+s about helping us fight Al Qaeda?

Hell, the CIA did 10 times more to aid Al Qaeda in Syria and Norther Africa than the Taliban ever did.

---

Dude, politely STFU. You have no clue..seriously.

---

Keep lying to yourself.

---

Ok. I'll take your blabbering over a Lt. Col with 27 years of combat flight experience and 8 years working in counterterrorism. You're right, you know more than me..

Sorry he has 12 years of counterterrorism experience solely in the Middle East. His squadron was the first to strike after 11 September, but go on.

---

In other words not youdo a little research on your own. You might start with "Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan" by Scott Horton. He could chew up and spit out your Lt Col friend when it comes to info about American wars.

---

That Lt. Col "friend" is my brother *******. Scott Horton? Seriously??? Oh my god..wow!!! I just split my spleen laughing!!! Your a cutie .

Fall of Saigon, Part Two

We flat out don't have the gumption to win a war anymore. As a populace and damn sure not our politicians who can't see past their next election.

Americans ****ing suck at foreign policy and proxy wars. I try so damn hard to not be bitter about it but as I get older the truth just keeps digging in harder and harder.

titan said:

---

Win At Life said:

---

When 85% of the men in a country are incorrigible murderers and rapists, to whom do you turn the country over when you leave?

---

You tell the women to either give up or do a lethal version of Lysistrata and lead the reform once and for all. They are the only ones that could force change there.

---

I disagree. In every society from the beginning of mankind until now, when the men of that society choose to brutalize their women, they succeed 100% of the time. Just a fact of differences in strength.

Eliminatus said:

---

Fall of Saigon, Part Two

We flat out don't have the gumption to win a war anymore. As a populace and damn sure not our politicians who can't see past their next election.

Americans ****ing suck at foreign policy and proxy wars. I try so damn hard to not be bitter about it but as I get older the truth just keeps digging in harder and harder.

---

Saigon was worse, because in many ways what we were doing had started to work. Our MSM kind of threw that war, and that's not much exaggeration (the Cronkite hate, etc, all ties partly to that, but its just the best known example). One of the more interesting revelations learned is that part of the issue was the strategy first had to stabilize the logistics of the situation, then deploy, then begin actively rolling back things. They actually have the VC largely destroyed after Tet, but the press makes that into a defeat because they achieved surprise. But that's like CNBC calling Battle of the Bulge a defeat because we were surprised --- (true) --but you can see the catch-22. Anyway, the longer story is more complicated, but it was interesting to learn that by the early 70's it wasn't really failing as much as lit looked--- it had taken that long just to undo the behind 8 ball situation things were in when we intervened.

Afghanistan by contrast, is not winnable. Once again, if the Mongols couldn't subdue it, or Stalinists, none could. Bar maybe the Reich-- but we won't ever know that.

agracer said:

---

A country has to want to be free in order to be free. You can't force it on them.

And IMO that was the biggest problem with both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their was no clear objective of when we were done (IE: Victory) when the war started, and really I don't see that there is one today either..

---

This is gospel in my eyes.

I worked with and around both Iraqis and Afghanis for years. I still cannot believe how naive we were towards them. We saw them harbor an enemy and we swooped in with solar panels, generators, and schools and thought all of these people would embrace us with open arms and convert to good democratic and capitalistic people!

My Lord we are such ****ing idiots .....

I'll say it again with conviction. We were never going to win those conflicts. Ever. We weren't allowed to.

Win At Life said:

---

titan said:

---

Win At Life said:

---

When 85% of the men in a country are incorrigible murderers and rapists, to whom do you turn the country over when you leave?

---

You tell the women to either give up or do a lethal version of Lysistrata and lead the reform once and for all. They are the only ones that could force change there.

---

I disagree. In every society from the beginning of mankind until now, when the men of that society choose to brutalize their women, they succeed 100% of the time. Just a fact of differences in strength.

---

Ah, but this day and age its never been easier to cancel a strength advantage. If they did it collectively, they could turn it around. It would require several martyrs though. Not saying it would be easy, what saying is, ONLY they can do it.

Unless you dispense with the modern and increasingly quaint notions of `the right way to do things' and just really stomp on the place --- but see the Mongols. Maybe they are just a write-off and should be left alone, and MOABe'd if they set up any bases, in the periodic style Israel defangs Gaza.

Eliminatus said:

---

agracer said:

---

A country has to want to be free in order to be free. You can't force it on them.

And IMO that was the biggest problem with both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their was no clear objective of when we were done (IE: Victory) when the war started, and really I don't see that there is one today either..

---

This is gospel in my eyes.

I worked with and around both Iraqis and Afghanis for years. I still cannot believe how naive we were towards them. We saw them harbor an enemy and we swooped in with solar panels, generators, and schools and thought all of these people would embrace us with open arms and convert to good democratic and capitalistic people!

My Lord we are such ****ing idiots .....

I'll say it again with conviction. We were never going to win those conflicts. Ever. We weren't allowed to.

---

True. Especially for Afghanistan.

However, Eliminatus, in your opinion and experience, was that really as true of the Iraqis? If they had had a true occupation government, the kind that presides over both reform and restructuring of everything in iron-fisted fashion like the post Europe occupation --- given the day of the `painted finger' voting --- could the Iraqis in a few decades have learned to run a modern state? How far was Saddam really from running such ---- was the potential not there, if we had been willing to actually do the restructuring with the forcefulness of earlier eras? Are the Iraqis not a somewhat modernized lot --- at least conceivably capable of being a Turkey?

Honest question.