Despite $900 Billion Spent, 173k killed, Afghanistan Continues to Deteriorate - Polidicks

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/01/despite-900-billion-spent-and-2400-us-li Kinda right leaning source but still, you can always check the report yourself.

We aren't there to help anyone, we're there for ourselves.

What reason do we still have to be there? Can anyone in the US military post here?

It's just the shitheads in charge saying "we have all of the power you have none" and also money.

China. Afghanistan borders directly with the Xinjiang region and we all know how much China is concerned with that part of the country. Also Pakistan is arguably one if not the most unstable nation with nuclear capabilities so that's another reason. Also, someone on reddit posted: The reasons for the US to stay in Afghanistan are outlined here by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, on August 18, 2018: The first real objective is to have hard power directly near the Chinese base road initiative (BRI) in Central Asia. Ask Donald Rumsfeld how difficult it was to get major military forces into this extraordinarily difficult land-locked terrain in the fall of 2001. For that reason, we are not about to depart. Second, in Afghanistan we are right next to the potentially most unstable nuclear stockpile on earth, Pakistan’s. We are not about to leave that either. We want to be able to pounce on that stockpile very swiftly should it become a threat. Third, we want to be able to mount and cover with hardpower CIA operations in Xinjiang province, China’s westernmost section. these would be operations aimed at using the some 20 million Uighurs in that province to destablize the government in Beijing should we suddenly find ourselves at war with that country.

The real reason is mainly force projection and geopolitics. We want to be there because otherwise somebody else, like Russia or China would be. We are the top dog and we want to flex it. There's also a lot of money in opium and minerals in Afghanistan, but you tend to get smeared as a conspiracy monger if you point out the natural resources angle.

What the fuck does "despite 2400 lives lost" or "despite 173k killed Afghanistan Continues to Deteriorate" even mean. That's like saying "Despite 24 litres of gasoline poured, fire continues to burn". The kids born at the start of the war are old enough to fight in it. US and English imperialism is responsible and now Trump's gonna give it the neoliberal treatment and privatize the war.

https://youtu.be/xuQZJHfWf9U At 1:20 mark.

Opium is also another reason we are still there. If you honestly think the CIA isn't taking a cut of that pie with the opioid crisis here in the states, you are out of your mind. It's the same shit that happened with Crack Cocaine in the 80s. The only way you'd win in Afghanistan is going into Pakistan and finishing the job, once and for all.

to add on this pakistan is the vital link to afghanistan and all the military trade between the two to facilitate the war has lead to better regional cooperation as well as stabilizing pakistan, but both are extremely vulnerable to climate change and may become uninhabitable very shortly

"despite"

Despite You misspelled "As a result of."

So we've successfully colonized Afghanistan?

Nobody has ever done that, and we most certainly have not done that now. After Al-Qaeda refused to watch our gulf pipelines we went in ourselves to secure it, and have been fighting Al-Qaeda and more often than not, just your average joe farmers from that point on. We haven't done anything for them and they want nothing from us.

But we've got military bases there, and if our goal is to have military bases there, then mission accomplished? Additionally we removed the taliban government from kabul

If that's the parameters we are setting for a job well done then it was accomplished after the first few years of being there.

Then what's the issue here?

No, you're absolutely right, there is no issue here. The issue is why we went in in the first place but that's a conversation nobody wins because the reasons were never a good one in the first place.

Al Qaeda attacked the Unites States of America, the Taliban were their state sponsors. We went in the remove the Taliban from power and bring Osama bin laden (among other Al Qaeda leaders) to Justice

That's a very neat public facing trademark version of the story. If you've watched or read much material in the decades since then it's alot more convoluted than that and boils down much more to your previous post, having military bases there. The UK did not go into Afghanistan to give justice for dead Americans, it was a multinational event that had very little to do with the attacks on US soil.

I have no idea why the UK got involved, but I don't particularly care that much. The United States invaded because of 9/11

It's never anything to do with the footsloggers my friend. It's always the cunts on top.

Sorry, but we cannot afford educate, provide healthcare, and take care of our own citizens.

Isn't there something about "fail-fast". We clearly haven't been able to fix the country in all these years despite all this money. At what point do you cut your losses?

I think it was more meant in the sense of "Despite how bad things are getting, there hasn't been appropriate measures taken to fix it." The implication is that normally the worse a situation gets, you would assumed an increased response in international intervention.

Or we could stick to the facts without trying to delve into pointless conspiracy theories about who and what's a criminal when there's very legal slaughter going on at the same time.

Yes we can.

It's a pretty good strategic location. It's just really disconcerting that we have been here so long. Some of the new members of my unit were 1 year old when 9/11 happened. It is legitimately weird.

Did you just connect the opioid crisis with opium trade in Afghanistan allegedly giving money to the CIA because the words are related to each other? This is stupid.