3 ms·
It didn't though. It was really really bad for them.
by tshaddox 1y ago
It didn't though. It was really really bad for them.
- majormajor 1y agoEven beyond the lives lost on the side of the anti-US fighters in those places, who wants to bet on if the US would give up and walk away and just let any random local armed community in its own territory ignore it? Will you see eventual retreat, or will you see eventual overwhelming force? The US didn't want to bulldoze these other countries and jail or kill everyone and set up a new state; very different than how the US would handle more Wacos.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoWaco wasn’t a problem due to any separatism or resistance to law enforcement. It’s because they were raising children to rape them. So tired of this equivocating on what those people were about.
- bearburger 1y agoWell, for a country that's faced attempts to be "tamed" by three superpowers over 200 years, Afghanistan's holding up pretty well. It exists and independent! By the way, it crossed my mind that all the superpowers that tried their luck are no longer superpowers. Britain's just a weak shadow of itself, the USSR completely collapsed. What fate awaits the USA?
- bdangubic 1y agosame