Granted with the vehicle shortage, it may be harder to find the Toyotas they usually prefer (Okay, so ISIS is technically a different organization but still, I can't imagine even the Taliban taking an F-150 if they had any other options )
While I agree that "fighting evil" is (usually) too simplistic a reason to justify a foreign intervention, it is a sufficiently expansive phrase to encompass all of the reasons you mentioned. Revenge for 9/11 - evil must be punished/destroyed Prevention of terrorism - evil actions must be prevented Perpetuating the gravy train for the military-industrial complex - our military industrial complex fights evil so must stay vital Control of strategic resources - we don't want evil people to have control of them Obtaining diplomatic or political kudos with allies - we need partners to fight evil Concern for human rights - save people from evil Maintaining "credibility" with other adversaries - prevent evil from acting Simplistic? Yes. But if you're going to justify on moral grounds, it's easy to cast the opponent as evil. I'd also point out, that there is no REAL reason for the action since many people--who may have vastly different motives--were involved in instigating and prolonging it. If you're for a gas tax to reduce consumption and I'm for it because it funds roads and we both support it and it passes, was it your reason or mine that was the real reason?
Agreed. Also, it's possible the people they're trying to get out of country couldn't get to the airport, and that the beer was part of a shipment on a cargo plane that was outfitted for stuff and couldn't safely carry passengers anyway.
Yeah, that was inevitable. 50% of Afghan's legitimate economy was foreign aid. That's all gone now. Their former treasurer said that he expects food prices to explode. 90% of Afghanis were living in $2 a day due to the massive corruption. At least in the short term, that's going to get worse. They are going to hock whatever they can get their hands on. And likely make alliances with bad actors just to keep the lights running. Sound familiar?
I should point out that sixth form was 30 years ago. He wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, he'd have been caught by now.
CoughCapaldiCough. Someone will say he wasn't a former vet, but when he played Malcolm he did deal with a lot of horses' arses.
It had a certain appeal. Plus Hugh Grant played the Doctor in Curse of Fatal Death so it's the only unofficial multi-Doctor adventure apart from Withnail & I.
How many innocent Afghans have died in the last twenty years as part of your way of punishing evil? Were they all guilty of OBLs crimes? Who is going to punish the US for all it's many, many evil deeds? Will you accept that as just when your town is a burnt out husk and half your family dead?
I didn't say that was my justification, only that it could be someone's. My justification is not moral, but practical: Afghanistan has been a refuge and base for extremist elements that have perpetrated mass attacks on civilian populations and threatened the functioning of the globalized world. As such, extremist elements in Afghanistan should be vigorously suppressed while that threat remains. No. A great many innocent civilians have been killed. I don't excuse that, but at the same time, the conflict is important enough that the inevitable civilian casualties are permissible. Every bombing raid on Germany or Japan in World War II--even the ones that didn't target civilian populations--had collateral damage. But the nature of the conflict justified it. Apparently, al Qaida was our punishment. Do you think 9/11 was deserved?
I do not, but the justification you have given could well be a double edged sword. Several people (at the very least) believed it was justified as evidenced by the fact it took place. To a significant portion of the human race the US are the villains of the piece and the Taliban (and Ak Qaeda) a valiant underdog resisting the dominant power, much as we portrayed them when they were called the mujahideen and doing exactly the same thing but opposing the Soviets. Both Rambo and James Bond fought alongside them in surprisingly similar films. Perhaps the world would benefit if everyone was a little more self critical? However your argument that the invasion was practical is one I cannot refute. We have no idea if it discouraged terrorism by denial of resources or encouraged it by feeding into the very perception which led to 9/11 in the first place. I'd suggest the latter given developments since and the pre existing pattern they've followed. YMMV. One thing worth bearing in mind here is that a practical argument is as open to bias as a moral one. If an invasion of Afghanistan was intended to reduce terrorism was 9/11 intended to weaken the US? Discourage imperialism? Certainly it did not happen without seeking to serve someone's purpose.
Who? Name them. Tell us which people want that Taliban to move in and run their country. What's the breakdown of illegal immigrants entering Afghanistan by country of origin because they just can't wait for the chance to live under Taliban rule?
How do you imagine they generate enough support to build a militia capable of overrunning a country in a matter of weeks? How do you imagine ISIS did the same? Do you really believe all Afghan women are progressives who want to be liberated? All Afghan men sympathetic to the west except for a few disenfranchised youths open to radicalisation? Do you imagine there to be no support in Russia, NK, Iran or China for a ragtag force humiliating the US? How about in Iraq? For there to be that many young men willing to fight and die we cannot be looking at an ideological vacuum here, there's grass roots support both at home and overseas. And yes there are illegal immigrants doing exactly that. Many of the Talibans front line troops are from foreign stock and if the "ISIS wives" are anything to go by there will be no shortage of misguided young women happy to voluntarily become subjugated.
How many innocent Afghans' lives were better because we were there and they weren't living under a brutal, misogynist theocratic regime?
Except they are, having faced another invasion. And they were always going to, whenever the US got tired of the occupation.
