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

I'm not sure what the point was?

I am pretty sure 9/11 is said to have been done by Al Qaeda and some extremely probable Saudi connections, not the Taliban. Forgive me if I am wrong though.

The Taliban were the state sponsor of Al Qaeda. Their previous state sponsor, Sudan, expelled them. The Taliban welcomed them

@Dan The Man I'll be good daddy I promise. My point that the UK and USA worked incredibly closely on the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm bringing to question the reasoning for going in, as I have been this entire thread, the hunt for Bin Laden was a sub goal of a wider resource security mission. The UK wouldn't just go and hire the USA's most hated enemy if both the USA and UK would not benefit from such, and if the Taliban had taken that deal, we may never have entered Afghanistan in the way we did what so ever, replaced the Government with a US asset and swept the country for all threats. The hunt for Bin Laden would still have happened I"m sure, but not on this scale, you are seeing the UK and USA as two separate entities, and when looking at these theaters, that just isn't the case.

If the US and UK benefitted from the invasion of Afghanistan, that's a different matter. There may have been ulterior motives to invade, but ultimately, the fact remains that Al Qaeda, under the tutelage of the Taliban government, attacked the United States and murdered 3,000 people. To me, this is justification enough to invade and remove the Taliban from power in Kabul.

Afghanistan has been fucked since the Soviets/Communists got involved and drove the country into a continuous state of war. West didn't help by flooding the place with funding, equipment and backing for militias that would go on to form thr Taliban etc.

Never said I want us to stay here. I'm just stating that we will leave sometime. That's not up to me. Also they don't support them more. Where are you getting that? Once again, that is just a perception. The people are tribal in nature, and are likely to support local leaders more. Also, turnout for elections is good every year, despite the threat posed to the voters. They have more turnout than Americans. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's something. I'd rather we leave sooner rather than later.

If they don't support them more than the insurgents, why is the Afghan government consistently losing territory and support to them? If the government has widespread support, it seems unusual in that all of their soldiers constantly desert and the Afghan "army" is little more than a pack of corrupt cowards whose sole charge is to sell arms and supplies given to them by the Americans.

Its been privatized since before Trump even campaigned. Blackwater has had their disgusting hand in the area for years.

How many death's has the CIA caused and why did nobody invade the US and remove its leaders in all of this years? And how far back does it go? Should the brits have invaded the US for killing all of those Natives? Please don't answer, these are rhetoric questions and your 12-year-old understanding of retaliation kinda shows me that you won't understand that.

Firstly you're a very rude person. I feel like I've been pretty civil here, so you don't need to go around calling people names. Secondly, the US definitely has done some heinous shit around the world. I'm not defending our actions in the 19th century genociding natives, or in Viet Nam invading them. I'm JUST talking about the casus belli for 9/11, which I feel to be justifiable.

I didn't say that you are defending the US actions and your "they attacked, we have to retaliate" opinion is literally like a 12 year olds or some comical movie villain.