4 ms·

Yes. Seriously yes. I would have liked to see a withdrawal that did not turn back the clock 20 years to where we were in August 2001, squandering all the blood

Yes. Seriously yes. I would have liked to see a withdrawal that did not turn back the clock 20 years to where we were in August 2001, squandering all the blood and treasure that has been expended in 2 decades. "Explainers" are why this is happening - weak minded people who prefer marketing (appearance of performance) over results. Surprising to me considering the heated replies to the other thread on the front page about how "story-telling" to appeal to VCs is fake news, and we should all be concerned about product quality first. US governance (both domestic and foreign) has devolved into nothing more than marketing sizzle instead of product quality.

crubier 5y ago
« Marketing over results ». Please explain to me how the results achieved during the previous administrations have been worth the enormous financial expenses. From my point of view, the current policy of spending zero and getting zero result is much more efficient than the previous policy of spending trillions and getting microscopic results. The mistake was starting this shitshow 20 years ago. And this is on the Bush administration.
Freak_NL 5y ago
> […] squandering all the blood and treasure that has been expended in 2 decades. The Sunk Cost Fallacy. So much resources have already been spent, that stopping now means those would have been wasted. The problem is that no amount of extra resources will lead to a different outcome, and the resources are already lost, so stopping outright is the only sensible move. Current events (a somewhat peaceful transfer of power seeming imminent rather than years of (more) war) support this. It would be different if some other outcome was possible; it doesn't look like anyone involved in the decision found this likely. (Note that this outcome sucks for many Afghans, it just sucks less than the alternatives.)
- hulitu 5y ago
  > > […] squandering all the blood and treasure that has been expended in 2 decades. > The Sunk Cost Fallacy. So much resources have already been spent, that stopping now means those would have been wasted. The lifes of people have been wasted. > The problem is that no amount of extra resources will lead to a different outcome, and the resources are already lost, so stopping outright is the only sensible move. Current events (a somewhat peaceful transfer of power seeming imminent rather than years of (more) war) support this. Pouring money in wars means more wars. > It would be different if some other outcome was possible; it doesn't look like anyone involved in the decision found this likely. There is no other outcome. Wars are fought to loot and to kill people. > (Note that this outcome sucks for many Afghans, it just sucks less than the alternatives.) Are you sure ? It will suck for american collaborators just as it sucked for talliban collaborators. For the rest of people it will be the same. Americans and their NATO allies ( why is NATO involved in every american aggression war ? it:s suppose to be a defensive organization ) were not guardian angels. As the russian said in world war 2: they preffer the evil that speaks their language.

crubier 5y ago

« Marketing over results ». Please explain to me how the results achieved during the previous administrations have been worth the enormous financial expenses. From my point of view, the current policy of spending zero and getting zero result is much more efficient than the previous policy of spending trillions and getting microscopic results. The mistake was starting this shitshow 20 years ago. And this is on the Bush administration.

Freak_NL 5y ago

> […] squandering all the blood and treasure that has been expended in 2 decades. The Sunk Cost Fallacy. So much resources have already been spent, that stopping now means those would have been wasted. The problem is that no amount of extra resources will lead to a different outcome, and the resources are already lost, so stopping outright is the only sensible move. Current events (a somewhat peaceful transfer of power seeming imminent rather than years of (more) war) support this. It would be different if some other outcome was possible; it doesn't look like anyone involved in the decision found this likely. (Note that this outcome sucks for many Afghans, it just sucks less than the alternatives.)

hulitu 5y ago
> > […] squandering all the blood and treasure that has been expended in 2 decades. > The Sunk Cost Fallacy. So much resources have already been spent, that stopping now means those would have been wasted. The lifes of people have been wasted. > The problem is that no amount of extra resources will lead to a different outcome, and the resources are already lost, so stopping outright is the only sensible move. Current events (a somewhat peaceful transfer of power seeming imminent rather than years of (more) war) support this. Pouring money in wars means more wars. > It would be different if some other outcome was possible; it doesn't look like anyone involved in the decision found this likely. There is no other outcome. Wars are fought to loot and to kill people. > (Note that this outcome sucks for many Afghans, it just sucks less than the alternatives.) Are you sure ? It will suck for american collaborators just as it sucked for talliban collaborators. For the rest of people it will be the same. Americans and their NATO allies ( why is NATO involved in every american aggression war ? it:s suppose to be a defensive organization ) were not guardian angels. As the russian said in world war 2: they preffer the evil that speaks their language.