3 ms·

This is amnesia. The neocons thought they could export US style democracy to the Middle East and Central Asia. They were wrong, morally and practically. Also,

by a0-prw 5y ago

This is amnesia. The neocons thought they could export US style democracy to the Middle East and Central Asia. They were wrong, morally and practically. Also, the Taliban did not attack America. Al Qaeda, led by OBL, did. Now the Taliban is back in power (as good as) and the US is giving material and military cover to rebranded Al Qaeda groups in Syria. Fortunately Russia put a stop to the regime change plans in Syria.

dragontamer 5y ago
Obama was not a neocon. The war was presided over 3 Presidential terms with a wide variety of political and policy viewpoints. To focus on just one political group as a scapegoat ignores the huge support the country had in 2001 across the political spectrum. Iraq was a mistake. Iraq convinced locals that we were anti-Muslim. ISIL was born from that mistake. The Taliban harbored and protected OBL and Al Qaeda. If they renounced AL Qaeda like other Muslims, I'm sure we could have worked out an agreement. But your post has amnesia: Mullah Omar of the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. Our attack on the Taliban is a natural result after that.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  I didn't say Obama was a neocon. He inherited the war, but it was engineered by neocons like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I don't think it matters much who's president. There's clearly semi-shadowy decision making behind the presidential facade. I think in internal politics the US president still has some influence but in international affairs, not so much. Edit: Fwiw, I acknowledged the US' right to attack Afghanistan in 2001 because they harboured OBL, and refused to renounce. Everything changed in 2003 with the completely unjustified attack on Iraq. You guys (assuming you're American) have absolutely no idea of how much you lost with that war of aggression. Now, everyone knows what the US is. People (who think) started reappraising history and once you start digging you realise what the US really is. Your narrative is broken. Noone believes in your values anymore. Now, countries which support the US are merely doing it for short term purposes, not because they really believe in your "values". The pipe dream of democracy, international rule of law and human rights all ended in 2003. It was always just a dream, but the world woke up in that year.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    That's some fancy judo you're doing there. I brought up that Iraq point first, but apparently I'm the one ignorant about Iraq.
    - a0-prw 5y ago
      I concede that you brought up Iraq first. Does that win you points or something. I am thoroughly aware of recent US history. I watched that clown Colin Powell disgrace the US with his "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction before the UN. If I remember correctly, it was televised live on Danish TV. Also: I didn't claim you were ignorant of Iraq. You are reading that into my comment. But your characterisation of that war of aggression as a "mistake" is incorrect. It was a crime.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        > Does that win you points or something. Its not my points that matter. Its your points in this discussion. I'm no longer convinced I'll have a reasonable discussion with you on this matter. A good discussion has give and take, back and forth. I don't expect it from you.
        a0-prw 5y ago
        Ok, I don't think HN points work that way (might be wrong, and don't really care). I meant points in a generic sense. But if you read back in our thread, I think you'll find that I'm contributing substance in every comment and you're just attacking. But I do now completely agree with you: This is is a waste of time.

by a0-prw 5y ago

dragontamer 5y ago

Obama was not a neocon. The war was presided over 3 Presidential terms with a wide variety of political and policy viewpoints. To focus on just one political group as a scapegoat ignores the huge support the country had in 2001 across the political spectrum. Iraq was a mistake. Iraq convinced locals that we were anti-Muslim. ISIL was born from that mistake. The Taliban harbored and protected OBL and Al Qaeda. If they renounced AL Qaeda like other Muslims, I'm sure we could have worked out an agreement. But your post has amnesia: Mullah Omar of the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. Our attack on the Taliban is a natural result after that.

a0-prw 5y ago
I didn't say Obama was a neocon. He inherited the war, but it was engineered by neocons like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I don't think it matters much who's president. There's clearly semi-shadowy decision making behind the presidential facade. I think in internal politics the US president still has some influence but in international affairs, not so much. Edit: Fwiw, I acknowledged the US' right to attack Afghanistan in 2001 because they harboured OBL, and refused to renounce. Everything changed in 2003 with the completely unjustified attack on Iraq. You guys (assuming you're American) have absolutely no idea of how much you lost with that war of aggression. Now, everyone knows what the US is. People (who think) started reappraising history and once you start digging you realise what the US really is. Your narrative is broken. Noone believes in your values anymore. Now, countries which support the US are merely doing it for short term purposes, not because they really believe in your "values". The pipe dream of democracy, international rule of law and human rights all ended in 2003. It was always just a dream, but the world woke up in that year.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  That's some fancy judo you're doing there. I brought up that Iraq point first, but apparently I'm the one ignorant about Iraq.
  - a0-prw 5y ago
    I concede that you brought up Iraq first. Does that win you points or something. I am thoroughly aware of recent US history. I watched that clown Colin Powell disgrace the US with his "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction before the UN. If I remember correctly, it was televised live on Danish TV. Also: I didn't claim you were ignorant of Iraq. You are reading that into my comment. But your characterisation of that war of aggression as a "mistake" is incorrect. It was a crime.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > Does that win you points or something. Its not my points that matter. Its your points in this discussion. I'm no longer convinced I'll have a reasonable discussion with you on this matter. A good discussion has give and take, back and forth. I don't expect it from you.
      - a0-prw 5y ago
        Ok, I don't think HN points work that way (might be wrong, and don't really care). I meant points in a generic sense. But if you read back in our thread, I think you'll find that I'm contributing substance in every comment and you're just attacking. But I do now completely agree with you: This is is a waste of time.