this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
519 points (97.1% liked)
simpsonsshitposting
5180 readers
163 users here now
I just think they're neat!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wish I knew people in 2004 who defended the afghanistan/iraq war. I'd ask them today if they still feel it was justified.
Some do, some don’t. Check the change in bush’s approval ratings for a decent approximation of likelihood
My coworker said the other day he wished trump would be more like W Bush (both he voted for) so i presume not only does he still think it was good but wants more of it
I’m trying to not talk about it for my sanity
That's really not one conflict. Conflating them was what the US regime at the time tried to do to whitewash their decisions.
Also, at least you do know people who were completely cool when everyone just pulled out of Afghanistan leaving the folk that worked with them to suffer the reprisals of the Taliban, so ask them if it was worth it.
You mean the Trump plan? That Trump developed? No, we were not cool with it
They were both unnecessary wastes of life and resources that were started for all the wrong reasons, so kind of.
The Taliban tried to give America Osama Bin Laden but they wanted something in exchange, so they invaded and suffered 20 years of war over such audacious demands.
The thing about Al-Qaeda and 9/11 is that it was always a Saudi operation.
The 9/11 attacks done by Al-Qaeda were Saudi. Al-Qaeda itself is a bit different, right, but I meant strictly in the context of the US invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban.
So 'the Al-Qaeda operation of 9/11 was Saudi' would be a more accurate way to put it.
In a strict legalist sense, yes. There is no direct connection with the governing Saudi monarchy and the operations of islamist organization Al-Qaeda. That is absolutely correct.
Right. In the same way the King bears responsibility for the assassination of Kashoggi because he was King and it happened under his reign. Not because he had anything directly to do with it.
Sure, as this dynamic is of a similar nature as the relationship between explicit anti-government organizations like the Oath Keepers and the American government.
It's quite fine that it doesn't make sense with such an interpretation of what I said. I haven't even disagreed with such refutation as a result.
Al Qaeda was all over the place. Wasn't a single Afghani on any of those planes. There were, however, 15 Saudis (out of 19 hijackers). The attack was planned by a Saudi. The organization was run by a Saudi, and funded by Saudis.
And yet, when we finally got bin laden, it wasn't in Afghanistan. He moved, easily, with Saudi money. Thousands of Americans were killed with weapons paid for by Saudi money, held by troops recruited and trained with Saudi money. Seems like if we had cut off the Saudi money this thing would have been over a hell of a lot faster.
How dare they blame the country most directly involved
Perhaps because it's the same nation that funded them
Also lol at "some". Yeah, 15 out of 19 is "some".
I don't think we should have attacked anyone. We should have sanctioned the fuck out of Saudi Arabia. Cut off the funding and al Qaeda dissolves on its own without firing a shot.
Oh they act like there were bad actors that manipulated the innocent US. The president was just making the best decisions he could smh.