Search:

[QUOTE=Helz;944044]I am glad its over. The occupation 'rebuild' was stupid in my opinion. We set that country back 200 years trying to force their society to function like ours.

The most substantial take-away I look at is how American military leaders did not have a real goal or objective. This (in my opinion) reflects that the war itself was just the pre-tense to move money around and keep that war economy going.

Wars in general are always about power when you dig deep enough. We wrap whatever ethical human rights nonsense we can around them after the fact to look justified but its just about raw power.

The refugee subject is another issue. No good will come of it in any respect and I generally disagree with the concept of refugees while holding the belief that it perpetuates inequality on a macro scale. But in this instance we created that suffering and have a duty to make it right regardless of the violence it can potentially bring to America. Not sure if diving into that subject would be productive though.[/QUOTE]

You basically wrote a statement about what I really wanted to say. As someone who is currently at CEFR B2, I hope I could write the same as you. Magnificent!

- War Issue: Business > Righteousness [B](check)[/B]
- To take in refugees issue: morally right, economically wrong, spreads regional instability[B] (check)[/B]

Instability -> Discrimination -> Racism

Originally Posted by Helz

I am glad its over. The occupation 'rebuild' was stupid in my opinion. We set that country back 200 years trying to force their society to function like ours.

The most substantial take-away I look at is how American military leaders did not have a real goal or objective. This (in my opinion) reflects that the war itself was just the pre-tense to move money around and keep that war economy going.

Wars in general are always about power when you dig deep enough. We wrap whatever ethical human rights nonsense we can around them after the fact to look justified but its just about raw power.

The refugee subject is another issue. No good will come of it in any respect and I generally disagree with the concept of refugees while holding the belief that it perpetuates inequality on a macro scale. But in this instance we created that suffering and have a duty to make it right regardless of the violence it can potentially bring to America. Not sure if diving into that subject would be productive though.

You basically wrote a statement about what I really wanted to say. As someone who is currently at CEFR B2, I hope I could write the same as you. Magnificent!

- War Issue: Business > Righteousness (check)
- To take in refugees issue: morally right, economically wrong, spreads regional instability (check)

Instability -> Discrimination -> Racism

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;944031]Stopped reading here. Form your own opinions. Think.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=NotPaopan;944030]and I came up with my own conclusion.[/QUOTE]

---

[QUOTE=Voss;944033]Can you give me evidence for this? I'm stupid and can't use google effectively. My search terms were "us kabul staged bomb attack secret deal" and "us isis-k negotiation".[/QUOTE]

The US in cahoots with ISIS is a good start. You can connect the dots after that.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Stopped reading here. Form your own opinions. Think.

Originally Posted by NotPaopan

and I came up with my own conclusion.

---

Originally Posted by Voss

Can you give me evidence for this? I'm stupid and can't use google effectively. My search terms were "us kabul staged bomb attack secret deal" and "us isis-k negotiation".

The US in cahoots with ISIS is a good start. You can connect the dots after that.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;944029]Of course you can't provide me with evidence that ISIS exists, because it doesn't. You actually believe the news? Lmfao.

I have deduced it on my own. How convenient that they "invented" a terrorist that nobody had ever heard of, then killed him off right when the government needed it. Who the fuck had ever heard of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? At least with bin Laden they gave it a couple decades or so.[/QUOTE]

No, I read and watch the news and I came up with my own conclusion. And you should understand that those people; Taliban, ISIS, A-Queda, etc have their own story and not just some cerebrates wanting to get themselves killed cos they are ordered to. They have their motives and personal story to explain why they are doing that.

ISIS-K definitely exist. It sided with the US (I won't even be surprised if some of its highest members are the US) to bomb Kabul to make the Taliban an embarrassment as Afghanistan's new ruler. The bombing just showed everyone in the world that even if the Taliban occupied Afghanistan, it doesn't control it.
And it only cost 13 dead / 18 gravely-ill low-ranked service members that are easy to replace to show 7 billion the message.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Of course you can't provide me with evidence that ISIS exists, because it doesn't. You actually believe the news? Lmfao.

I have deduced it on my own. How convenient that they "invented" a terrorist that nobody had ever heard of, then killed him off right when the government needed it. Who the fuck had ever heard of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? At least with bin Laden they gave it a couple decades or so.

No, I read and watch the news and I came up with my own conclusion. And you should understand that those people; Taliban, ISIS, A-Queda, etc have their own story and not just some cerebrates wanting to get themselves killed cos they are ordered to. They have their motives and personal story to explain why they are doing that.

ISIS-K definitely exist. It sided with the US (I won't even be surprised if some of its highest members are the US) to bomb Kabul to make the Taliban an embarrassment as Afghanistan's new ruler. The bombing just showed everyone in the world that even if the Taliban occupied Afghanistan, it doesn't control it.
And it only cost 13 dead / 18 gravely-ill low-ranked service members that are easy to replace to show 7 billion the message.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;944010]Ahh, nvm.
For example, the Al-Qaeda, they were armed by the US own arms dealers - which was approved by the presidential administration at the time.
[url]https://www.businessinsider.com/how-us-arms-dealers-sell-weapons-2014-4[/url]

Afterwards spending tax money for troops to go fight those very groups you just armed seem illogical unless those giving the orders got paid by those who sold the arms to begin with?
The problem with that is - could such a level of corruption be really kept a secret?
Surely there has to be some agency responsible for investigating corruption in the US, and from such an agency even "national security" labels wouldn't be off limits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Unless it was the governments own idea all along, in which welcome to The [URL="https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/war-for-oil-conspiracy-theories-may-be-right"]War-for-Oil Conspiracy Theories[/URL]! Which I'm honestly still confused about, and have trouble finding a good explanation for. :S[/QUOTE]

Definitely not conspiracy lol. Other instances include Mexico currently suing US gun companies for negligence (well technically not since it is on purpose) on its arms trafficking, specifically towards the cartels. Or the Sunni Arabias or Come back Is Rael Jews. Sure the military got defence pacts on some countries... But in volatile regions such as Saudi or Taiwan, they don't... They just sell weapons. Peacekeeping my ass.

[MENTION=2230]oops_ur_dead[/MENTION] I cannot and won't provide if u ask me for evidence. But for sure you can deduce it on your own.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Ahh, nvm.
For example, the Al-Qaeda, they were armed by the US own arms dealers - which was approved by the presidential administration at the time.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...weapons-2014-4

Afterwards spending tax money for troops to go fight those very groups you just armed seem illogical unless those giving the orders got paid by those who sold the arms to begin with?
The problem with that is - could such a level of corruption be really kept a secret?
Surely there has to be some agency responsible for investigating corruption in the US, and from such an agency even "national security" labels wouldn't be off limits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Unless it was the governments own idea all along, in which welcome to The War-for-Oil Conspiracy Theories! Which I'm honestly still confused about, and have trouble finding a good explanation for.

Definitely not conspiracy lol. Other instances include Mexico currently suing US gun companies for negligence (well technically not since it is on purpose) on its arms trafficking, specifically towards the cartels. Or the Sunni Arabias or Come back Is Rael Jews. Sure the military got defence pacts on some countries... But in volatile regions such as Saudi or Taiwan, they don't... They just sell weapons. Peacekeeping my ass.

@oops_ur_dead I cannot and won't provide if u ask me for evidence. But for sure you can deduce it on your own.

[QUOTE=Voss;943966]I didn't know the mission was to kill civilians! /s[/QUOTE]

It is! After the US negotiated with the ISIS-K and staged a bomb attack on Kabul to keep the money flowing. Aftermath includes Taliban gonna get mad. Biden showing some "force". Win-win for them.

+1.6% increase of defence budget. Corruption at its finest.

Originally Posted by Voss

I didn't know the mission was to kill civilians! /s

It is! After the US negotiated with the ISIS-K and staged a bomb attack on Kabul to keep the money flowing. Aftermath includes Taliban gonna get mad. Biden showing some "force". Win-win for them.

+1.6% increase of defence budget. Corruption at its finest.

I'm no expert but sending an attack drone to kill some civilians and cause havoc doesn't seem like a [I]withdrawal[/I].

I'm no expert but sending an attack drone to kill some civilians and cause havoc doesn't seem like a withdrawal.