3 ms·

It sounds rough, and its something US citizens will probably never swallow or accept, but in both Iraq and Afghanistan US is a pure force of evil as time showed

It sounds rough, and its something US citizens will probably never swallow or accept, but in both Iraq and Afghanistan US is a pure force of evil as time showed. Simple fact - the country and its citizens would be statistically far better under horrible Taliban/Saddam rule rather than under very unstable and increasingly marginal US rule. Taliban would not kill the amounts caused by these invasions in 100 years, and children for example wouldn't be affected. As for Iraq, Saddam would be a blessing compared to hell this country went through in last 15 years since Bush jr. decided to please some powerful people behind Rumsfeld and Cheney. US lost both wars, beaten by poor guys with AKs, IEDs and suicide bombers. Iraq is more complicated because its semi-functional but Afghanistan is lost cause even according to US military.

mirimir 8y ago
Indeed. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US initially supported agents who were enemies of its enemies. But then those agents became enemies. And innocent people suffered and died, all for power games. In Afghanistan, the US initially supported the Taliban against the Soviets. Just like in Vietnam. And then the CIA trained Osama and al-Qaeda, with financial support from the Saudis. But once the Soviets were gone, the downsides of the Taliban and al-Qaeda became evident. Oppression of women. International operations. So the US invaded. In Iraq, the US initially supported Saddam, because he was tough on Communists, and not overtly Islamic. Like those nice Turks. Except that he was rather fascist, but hey. And then they supported him against Iran, which had thrown off US domination (i.e., the Shah) and frightened allies (Israelis and Saudis). But then he pissed off the Saudis, and started talking too much about international operations. So the US kicked them out of Kuwait, starved them and sporadically bombed them for a few years, and finally invaded. What a mess.
- nradov 8y ago
  There is no evidence that US forces ever directly trained Osama bin Laden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden#Opposing_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_...
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That's not surprising. I mean, the CIA admittedly destroyed records about torture in Iraq.

mirimir 8y ago

Indeed. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US initially supported agents who were enemies of its enemies. But then those agents became enemies. And innocent people suffered and died, all for power games. In Afghanistan, the US initially supported the Taliban against the Soviets. Just like in Vietnam. And then the CIA trained Osama and al-Qaeda, with financial support from the Saudis. But once the Soviets were gone, the downsides of the Taliban and al-Qaeda became evident. Oppression of women. International operations. So the US invaded. In Iraq, the US initially supported Saddam, because he was tough on Communists, and not overtly Islamic. Like those nice Turks. Except that he was rather fascist, but hey. And then they supported him against Iran, which had thrown off US domination (i.e., the Shah) and frightened allies (Israelis and Saudis). But then he pissed off the Saudis, and started talking too much about international operations. So the US kicked them out of Kuwait, starved them and sporadically bombed them for a few years, and finally invaded. What a mess.

nradov 8y ago
There is no evidence that US forces ever directly trained Osama bin Laden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden#Opposing_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_...
- mirimir 8y ago
  That's not surprising. I mean, the CIA admittedly destroyed records about torture in Iraq.