4 ms·

And this sort of thinking is exactly how we wound up stuck there for 20yr. Voter block A wants to bomb them back to the stone age and leave. Voter block B won

And this sort of thinking is exactly how we wound up stuck there for 20yr. Voter block A wants to bomb them back to the stone age and leave. Voter block B won't tolerate wrecking the place without some pretext of "helping the people" or whatever that means. So the compromise is to wreck the nation then spend 20yr pushing food around our plate as though we're actually going to rebuild it until voter block B is satisfied that we gave it the college try.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
Is it entirely unthinkable to not invade instead?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  In late September and early October of 2001 when plans were being drawn up it was.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    Why exactly? I don't understand. I never understood what was the real reason for the war. Multiple theories have been put forward that I am aware of but they all seem (to me) to be "just so" stories trying to find a post-hoc explanation for what seemed to be an invasion completely without reason. Oil interests, heroin trade, geopolitical advantage, democracy and human rights (actually that was one of the explanations at the time I think), revenge for 9/11, none of all that makes any sense, neither not invading unthinkable. Why was not invading unthinkable, at any point? More so, why was it necessary? What did anyone gain from sendnig an already piss-poor and backwards country even further back in time towards the Stone Age? And, to clarify, are you saying that to not invade was unthinkable for US citizens, or for the US government? Or someone else?
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      > revenge for 9/11, none of all that makes any sense Attacking al-quaeda after 9/11 didn't make sense?
      - calsy 5y ago
        What does an occupation of a foreign country that has millions of civilians with no connection to these events have to do with attacking al-quaeda? Are they simply guilty by association for harboring terrorists. Americans still haven't worked out that taking over nation by force isn't the correct answer and makes things worse. God forbid anyone attempt to occupy the US, you would all go ape shit mad.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
        But the US didn't attack Al-Qaeda. It attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. It killed their civilians, destroyed their infrasructure, obliterated their states. How is that attacking Al-Qaeda?
- em500 5y ago
  The initial invasion in 2001 had 100% support Congress and IIRC 80%+ popular support. So yes, not invading was unthinkable.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    That's a very heavy accusation to lob at the US people I think. Who says this and where does the 80% number come from? And why would the US people want their country to invade a country on the other side of the world, that was no threat to them and was clearly not capable of defending itself against the might of the US army? Why would the US people want their country to invade anyone? And 80% of them? This I find very hard to believe. Maybe the "80% support" was for something else entirely, e.g. killing Bin Laden or destroying Al Qaeda, rather than invading Afghanistan?
    - em500 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_on_the_war_in_Afghanistan#International_public_opinion_compared_to_American_public_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_o... https://web.archive.org/web/20140203074515/http://www.aei.org/files/2008/07/24/20050805_terror0805.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20140203074515/http://www.aei.or... (p.58: "Do you approve or disapprove of the current U.S. military action in Afghanistan?")
      - koheripbal 5y ago
        better source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghanistan.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghani...
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghanistan.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghani... 88% approval in the US in Oct 2001.
      - 5y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

Is it entirely unthinkable to not invade instead?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
In late September and early October of 2001 when plans were being drawn up it was.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  Why exactly? I don't understand. I never understood what was the real reason for the war. Multiple theories have been put forward that I am aware of but they all seem (to me) to be "just so" stories trying to find a post-hoc explanation for what seemed to be an invasion completely without reason. Oil interests, heroin trade, geopolitical advantage, democracy and human rights (actually that was one of the explanations at the time I think), revenge for 9/11, none of all that makes any sense, neither not invading unthinkable. Why was not invading unthinkable, at any point? More so, why was it necessary? What did anyone gain from sendnig an already piss-poor and backwards country even further back in time towards the Stone Age? And, to clarify, are you saying that to not invade was unthinkable for US citizens, or for the US government? Or someone else?
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    > revenge for 9/11, none of all that makes any sense Attacking al-quaeda after 9/11 didn't make sense?
    - calsy 5y ago
      What does an occupation of a foreign country that has millions of civilians with no connection to these events have to do with attacking al-quaeda? Are they simply guilty by association for harboring terrorists. Americans still haven't worked out that taking over nation by force isn't the correct answer and makes things worse. God forbid anyone attempt to occupy the US, you would all go ape shit mad.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
      But the US didn't attack Al-Qaeda. It attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. It killed their civilians, destroyed their infrasructure, obliterated their states. How is that attacking Al-Qaeda?
em500 5y ago
The initial invasion in 2001 had 100% support Congress and IIRC 80%+ popular support. So yes, not invading was unthinkable.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  That's a very heavy accusation to lob at the US people I think. Who says this and where does the 80% number come from? And why would the US people want their country to invade a country on the other side of the world, that was no threat to them and was clearly not capable of defending itself against the might of the US army? Why would the US people want their country to invade anyone? And 80% of them? This I find very hard to believe. Maybe the "80% support" was for something else entirely, e.g. killing Bin Laden or destroying Al Qaeda, rather than invading Afghanistan?
  - em500 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_on_the_war_in_Afghanistan#International_public_opinion_compared_to_American_public_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_o... https://web.archive.org/web/20140203074515/http://www.aei.org/files/2008/07/24/20050805_terror0805.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20140203074515/http://www.aei.or... (p.58: "Do you approve or disapprove of the current U.S. military action in Afghanistan?")
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      better source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghanistan.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghani...
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghanistan.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghani... 88% approval in the US in Oct 2001.
    - 5y ago