@1
I don't know who's paying off who, never will. I think I know that Dan Savage's nephew is a marine, and maybe us sloggers could just say a quick prayer for his safety, or cross you're fingers for sec if you're not religious.
5 Nice article. Note that I don't process this style of writing too well.
Based on the last bit of the paragraph following the Watan Risk paragraph, would it not be more accurate to title the article "US Taxpayers Fund Afghan Warlords"?
Not to diminish the sacrifice of our brave soldiers but this is America's longest war and we've lost two thousand soldiers. That's less casualties than most single battles of WWII. And the Afghan culture is one of payoffs, as is ours. If we don't establish some stable government the state can be used for enormous trouble for it's neighbors.
@7, how many Afgan civilians have been killed though? I find it interesting/terrifying that you seem to justify this war based on the low number of American deaths as opposed to the number of innocent's killed by our drone strikes.
@8 I don't feel any less bad for Afghans. But their country attacked us. And we have a right, along with our allies, to make things right. We haven't destroyed Afghan cities. We haven't even targeted Afghan civilians. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the Taliban fanatics that brought this on the country.
@10
The Afghan government (the Taliban) did not attack us.
Al Queda attacked us.
The Taliban had allowed Al Queda to set up shop in Afghanistan.
To the Afghan people, this is an incredibly obvious difference.
Which is one of the reasons that even after 10 years of occupation they still find people willing to die as long as they can take an American with them.
Another reason is the corrupt government that WE set up and that WE maintain. See Egypt for a previous example.
Bush lost Afghanistan when he decided to invade Iraq.
"We gave the Taliban plenty of time, under threat of war, to turn over bin Laden and they refused."
That was 10 years ago.
And the US didn't limit itself to killing only Al Queda.
Nor did the US limit itself to killing the Taliban.
So now we're facing people who have, for 10 years, seen us kill their innocent (not Taliban, not Al Queda) friends, family and children.
We can call it "collateral damage" but that is only to make us feel better about ourselves.
I like how you selectively forget the enslavement of half the population by the Taliban. I suppose it's not noble enough to make that a part of our cause that we make women Afghan citizens and not rape slaves.
@14
"I like how you selectively forget the enslavement of half the population by the Taliban."
Really? That's where you want to go?
When did women get the right to vote in the USofA?
"I suppose it's not noble enough to make that a part of our cause that we make women Afghan citizens and not rape slaves."
So in your mind it is better that a woman be killed by an American bomb than she live her life under oppression.
And that's the problem with that logic.
We didn't invade because they discriminated against women.
Even our allies over there oppressed women.
Look up Egypt. Look up Kuwait. Look up Saudi Arabia.
And we SUPPORTED those governments.
When we kill a woman in Afghanistan we run the risk of turning her family and friends into fanatics who will die as long as they can take one American with them.
We do NOT liberate that woman.
I don't know who's paying off who, never will. I think I know that Dan Savage's nephew is a marine, and maybe us sloggers could just say a quick prayer for his safety, or cross you're fingers for sec if you're not religious.
Based on the last bit of the paragraph following the Watan Risk paragraph, would it not be more accurate to title the article "US Taxpayers Fund Afghan Warlords"?
The Afghan government (the Taliban) did not attack us.
Al Queda attacked us.
The Taliban had allowed Al Queda to set up shop in Afghanistan.
To the Afghan people, this is an incredibly obvious difference.
Which is one of the reasons that even after 10 years of occupation they still find people willing to die as long as they can take an American with them.
Another reason is the corrupt government that WE set up and that WE maintain. See Egypt for a previous example.
Bush lost Afghanistan when he decided to invade Iraq.
"Six of one, half dozen of the other."
To Americans, yes.
To the Afghan people, no.
"We gave the Taliban plenty of time, under threat of war, to turn over bin Laden and they refused."
That was 10 years ago.
And the US didn't limit itself to killing only Al Queda.
Nor did the US limit itself to killing the Taliban.
So now we're facing people who have, for 10 years, seen us kill their innocent (not Taliban, not Al Queda) friends, family and children.
We can call it "collateral damage" but that is only to make us feel better about ourselves.
The sooner we leave both Iraq and Afghanistan and ignore the entire Middle East, the better.
"I like how you selectively forget the enslavement of half the population by the Taliban."
Really? That's where you want to go?
When did women get the right to vote in the USofA?
"I suppose it's not noble enough to make that a part of our cause that we make women Afghan citizens and not rape slaves."
So in your mind it is better that a woman be killed by an American bomb than she live her life under oppression.
And that's the problem with that logic.
We didn't invade because they discriminated against women.
Even our allies over there oppressed women.
Look up Egypt. Look up Kuwait. Look up Saudi Arabia.
And we SUPPORTED those governments.
When we kill a woman in Afghanistan we run the risk of turning her family and friends into fanatics who will die as long as they can take one American with them.
We do NOT liberate that woman.