The Afghanistan war has gone on so long that people born after 9/11 can enlist - Sensationalist Headlines

That speech was about Iraq

Wasn't that sign up because the carrier had completed it's assigned mission and was heading home out of the rotation.

I apologise for not realizing the great success that the United States had in bringing peace and stability to the peoples of Iraq

Are we talking about Iraq here?

People weirdly seem to conflate Iraq and Afghanistan all the time and act as if they're equally unjustified Iraq was an unjust war based on false information, Afghanistan however was not and was response to an act of war on par with Pearl Harbor. In fact 9/11 cost roughly the same amount of lives, if not more than Pearl Harbor did. I'd say that's a pretty solid justification for war. The Afghanistan government have literally requested coalition forces stay unlike the Iraq government so it's not even like you can argue the US is imposing itself on them.

the point is the picture is to illustrate the hubris. i know fully well that bush never said "mission accomplished", that he spoke about iraq, but it doesn't matter. the point of posting that picture is that it does in a single image what would normally take ten words to explain to a normal person or a thousand to somebody like you. it shows succinctly the hubris of the united states (and west) in believing that they can invade some random middle eastern countries, install useless governments, and then spend the best part of a generation while hundreds of thousands die just so some idiot in the west walking down the streets of Nice thinks to himself that terrorism is being dealt with, that these countries will become model functioning democracies shortly before a lorry slams into him the shitshow of iraq is much like that in afghanistan. they are both resolute failures

700 billion is this years military budget, yet we """"cannot afford"""" to give people basic healthcare in our own country. That is 700 billion for this year alone and its going up. We are straight up not even fighting wars because of terrorists anymore, assuming we ever were doing it to begin with. At this point it may as well be "In for a penny in for a few ten trillion dollars" so that a bunch of idiots can stand in reverence for the dead that fought in a fruitless war we aren't going to win.

You're right we should've just let them get away with it

whos they?

Al Qaeda, the Taliban

taliban had barely anything to do with the attacks (certainly less to do with 9-11 than the saudis did) and the US is helping al-queda in syria right now so why are we still fighting the taliban?

1.) Taliban gave material support and comfort to Al Qaeda which helped them attack the United States. Al Qaeda was a weapon of the Taliban regime and therefore 9/11 was an act of war by the Taliban 2.) Citation needed

We already apparently killed the people behind it. But we're still at it. This goes FAR beyond "not letting them get away with it". it goes into straight up revenge imperialism territory. 15 out of 19 of the attackers were Saudi citizens and there are some very suspicious connections, but we didn't invade them. In fact they're our allies and we help them big time.

The US is not helping Al Qaeda they pulled support for the FSA ages ago once it turned out it was filled with Islamists.

You're the one making the claims here.

No they killed one of the people behind it, the organisation behind it is still very much active, albeit in a much weakened state.

No, he claimed the US is helping al qaeda. He needs to cite that Like I said, I think the initial invasion was justified, but I'm not sure if we should still be there, and the saudis are a different story

Yes. The banner was put up on the Abraham Lincoln because it had just completed its longest deployment, a deployment that had been extended midway through and the longest deployment of any nuclear carrier at the time, and the crew were celebrating being able to finally go home.

bin laden absconded to pakistan, where the pakistani government then let him build himself a nice mansion and then spent years doing nothing about it. why didn't we invade pakistan afterwars? as for the latter, the USA literally armed them. al-nusra, al-whatever, all these shitty little splinter groups of goatfucker jihadis (that the USA still covers for by opposing assads advance into idlib)

Because invading a nuclear armed state is a whole other kettle of fish compared to intervening in a country that was already in a state of civil war when we got there?

We eventually took him out in Pakistan. The relationship between the US, Pakistan, the Taliban, India, and Russia is a precarious one. Pakistan would've been a bigger deal than Afghanistan, as would Saudi Arabia have been. Furthermore, the Pakistani government was not making it the official policy at all levels of government to give comfort to Al Qaeda; there are factions within the Pakistani government and intelligence services which support jihadi groups for reasons unrelated to relations with America. The administration which most directly gave material support to Al Qaeda at all levels of government and which made it official state policy to call for international jihad was the Taliban.

Because we're already trillions in, may as well make it trillions more. We have people with power straight up saying we want mineral resources from war at this point. As said before, "In for a penny in for a few ten trillion dollars"

It's not up to people to argue why we should automatically be at war with another state - it's up to people to argue why we should allow a war that has rendered thousand of innocent people dead and destabilised the middle east to continue.

But Afghanistan didn't destabilise the middle east? Afghanistan was already unstable when the coalition got there, there was literally a civil war on the go since 1996. Again this seems to be another conflation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the US is still sending troops there, it's not because it's stable. I wasn't conflating the two.

You said: though the war in Afghanistan didn't destabilize the middle east; the civil war had been going on since 1996 and we gave support to the Northern Alliance

You think an invasion was justified. If the current Neo-Nazi undercurrent in America were to cause a terrorist attack in Kabul or something, you think they would be morally justified in invading the US? That's an immensely stupid position. The only thing an invasion did, and in fact what anyone with more than half a brain could see even at the time, is entrench peoples' opinions in the middle east that the US does whatever it wants whenever it wants purely for emotional reasons while not considering what lives they may be affecting. You may have achieved your mission of slightly stifling terrorist activity, but at too great a cost. The tens of thousands of innocent afghan civilians that have been killed because the US decided to invade are not worth less than americans.

It was never stable, the issue is that you seem to think there was stability there prior to the Afghanistan invasion when there really wasn't.

If the government of the United States gave material comfort to Neo-nazis, then yes

Why do you think there wasn't stability there. Could it be because of the US non-interventionist policy of interfering by supporting coups of democratically elected governments in Iran and Syria, to name a few? Also, the funding doesn't matter. The 9/11 terrorists and al qaeda etc are/were hugely funded by Saudi interests and officials, but I don't remember the US ever invading that country? So let me rephrase the question, if Canada funded Neo Nazi groups in the US through corrupt government officials to do a terrorist attack somewhere in the world, that would be moral justification to invade the US?