Fate of Afghanistan, Taliban resurgence

[uuuhname]

"if the west had not gone in there" there wouldn't be tens of thousands of dead Afghanis killed by the US and it's allies. sorry to break this but the talibs don't even come close in that regard. but this isn't about the plight of the Afghan people no no no! that gets in the way of waxing those imperialist boners. we (as in the US not any of these crying Europeans) need to spend another 20 years in there to make sure the exact same outcome that happened now gets pushed back to then.

[Easo]

"if the west had not gone in there" there wouldn't be tens of thousands of dead Afghanis killed by the US and it's allies. sorry to break this but the talibs don't even come close in that regard. but this isn't about the plight of the Afghan people no no no! that gets in the way of waxing those imperialist boners. we (as in the US not any of these crying Europeans) need to spend another 20 years in there to make sure the exact same outcome that happened now gets pushed back to then.

It is almost like you forgot there was an active ongoing war at the time in Afghanistan, already in it's 6th year. Oh, yeah, massacres too by talibs. But sure, count who made more corpses, if you want to. Just don't forget to include the 3 thousand dead from New York.
P.S.
I fully expect you to complain when China will finally "go" to Taiwan and USA decides to intervene.

[uuuhname]

so let's make those ongoing wars even worse, great idea, why didn't I think of that. why should we let the Taliban have all the fun when we can be the one's blowing up entire families with a drone strike.

P.S. there was a 9/11 happening every week in that country for over a decade and none of you cared, because again as long as it's dead brown people then that's just the cost of doing business.

P.S.S. this isn't your mind palace where the US is E V E R going to go to war with China.

[Breccia]

P.S. there was a 9/11 happening every week in that country for over a decade

The number of Afghani civilians killed during the 20 year occupation was over 47,000.

That's a tragically high number. But it is not a 9/11 every week. You don't need to exaggerate the loss of human lives when it's already in the five figures.

[JohnBrown1917]

Amazing, now we have gotten to the point where people are basically arguing whether Taliban are that bad and how "if just the West would not go there" it would all be good.

There are no ifs, no buts - they are pieces of absolute shit. Yet some argue and deflect blame...

That is not exactly a reason to invade, but its what Americans and those on their side do love.


Is it now a good idea to also liberate Guantanamo bay? Fair is fair right?

[uuuhname]

The number of Afghani civilians killed during the 20 year occupation was over 47,000.

That's a tragically high number. But it is not a 9/11 every week. You don't need to exaggerate the loss of human lives when it's already in the five figures.

funny how I'm the one who get's checked on what a disaster this was for the average Afghani when we have people in this thread wouldn't blink at that number doubling so long as they can brag about how great the west is for conquering that region. really, awesome priorities.

[JohnBrown1917]

I fully expect you to complain when China will finally "go" to Taiwan and USA decides to intervene.

Taiwan and the mainland are both still in a civil war, I have no idea how you think that is even comparable to the US invading whatever country they want.


Which, should be noted, is never done out of goodwill but for profit and/or power.

[Breccia]

funny how I'm the one who get's checked on what a disaster this was for the average Afghani when we have people in this thread wouldn't blink at that number

Other people's failings are not an excuse for you to multiply the deaths by fifty. If you have a clear, factually-based argument, you're in a much better position to point fingers at those who don't. 47,000 is more than enough civilian casualties to be a major 20-year disaster, you don't need to lie to make your point, and you can't call out others for making poor arguments if you're lying when making yours.

[uuuhname]

Other people's failings are not an excuse for you to multiply the deaths by fifty. If you have a clear, factually-based argument, you're in a much better position to point fingers at those who don't. 47,000 is more than enough civilian casualties to be a major 20-year disaster, you don't need to lie to make your point, and you can't call out others for making poor arguments if you're lying when making yours.

I don't care dude. I'm not the least bit interested in winning over people who are so delusional they think the US is in some sort of position to go to war with China and win. as if a "fact based" argument is ever going to work on those people anyway... I really don't care about the finer details when the overall point remains the same.

you debate lords can spend that much time and energy doing so, I won't.

also, I noticed how you cut off the crucial part at the end when you quoted me where I explain that it doesn't matter what the exact number is it could be 100,000 dead Afghanis it could be a 1,000,000 dead Afghanis, it doesn't matter to these people.

[Breccia]

I explain that it doesn't matter

"If they won't accept facts, then the facts don't matter" sounds like you're stooping to their level. There's no reason to lie when the facts supporting your argument are already strong. Present real evidence, if they dismiss it that's on them. If you present a lie, and they dismiss it, you're handing them the victory.

[uuuhname]

you're handing them the victory.

I already won when my based AF president stuck to his guns and pulled all of our ground troops out of there. AGAIN, you keep ignoring that even if those numbers where twice or even 10X higher than my exaggeration none of these people crying over the US pulling out would care! because at the end of the day, the real human cost means nothing to when the the pursuit of maintaining western dominance over the globe is what ultimately matters. you debate lords lose the forest for the trees constantly.

[Breccia]

you keep ignoring that even if those numbers where twice or even 10X higher than my exaggeration

"Even if" is a nice way of saying "but they're not". You don't have the moral high ground when you complain people are ignoring your false numbers. The real ones are bad enough. Use those. Your argument will be stronger, and if people ignore you it's a failing on their part not yours.

[draynay]

Eleventy godzillion people die every second in Afghanistan and nobody even talks about it. Wake up sheeple!

[uuuhname]

last time I'm indulging this, but what the fuck??? the moral high ground here is not supporting a never ending war that would have continued to cost me and other tax payers trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, thousands more Afghani lives and would ultimately lead to the same outcome we are seeing now. THAT'S the moral stance here. you can keep whining over how I'm the one who is somehow in the wrong all you like, I really could not care less.

[Edge-]

the moral high ground here is not supporting a never ending war that would have continued to cost me and other tax payers trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, thousands more Afghani lives and would ultimately lead to the same outcome we are seeing now. THAT'S the moral stance here. you can keep whining over how I'm the one who is somehow in the wrong all you like, I really could not care less.

I think you're arguing with the wrong people, dude.

[Breccia]

I really could not care less.

Well you keep responding, so, I kinda think you do. I think you got caught making numbers up to sell a point you didn't need to make numbers up to sell.

Imagine the following statement;

"The minimum wage is too low to survive. Right now, the price of a can of Campbell's Soup is $24.99"

Does the minimum wage need to go up? I think it does. But claiming that a can of soup costs twenty-five dollars doesn't make my point. It makes me look ignorant, stupid, or flat-out lying. None of which make points. If anything, those are anti-points.

Or, you could have said "I'm exaggerating" in the first post. Which you didn't. You took three posts to say that, after you got caught. 47,000 is a lot of dead civilians, it's horrifying and tragic. It's shameful that Obama contributed and it's great that Biden's at least going to make the US's direct contribution much lower. It stands on its own. You don't need to inflate "moderately-filled NFL stadium filled with corpses" to "entire population of Philadelphia every single one dies".

Or, like you just did, don't use number at all when there's a math teacher prowling the forums with a five-year history of catching people who blatantly, objectively lie.

[uuuhname]

I think you're arguing with the wrong people, dude.

Breccia seems pretty intent on making this a conversation about me. not arguing with the people who want the US to spend another 20 years in Afghanistan but argue that I'm not working to their standards.

[Breccia]

Breccia seems pretty intent on making this a conversation about me

You're the one who said a 9/11 every week. It'd be strange if I didn't call that out.

[PhaelixWW]

You're the one who said a 9/11 every week. It'd be strange if I didn't call that out.

Maybe he meant the other 9/11?

Because that, at least, comes close.

[jonnysensible]

cmon guys no need to be pedantic its 0.05 9/11's a week and thats only if we go off 174000 odd dead (seems low)