freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 2:43pm:


It took them 10 years, untold 10s of thousands of dead and a continuing military quagmire to kill him. I don't know, do you think thats an acceptable transactional cost? Do you think they 'war-gamed' this scenario before they launched the invasion and thought, yeah that will be worth doing? I'm guessing not.

I'll take a punt and suggest that a US-Taliban join operation wouldn't have taken 10 years, less people would have died, and the US wouldn't be still fighting an insurgency and stuck with maintaining a costly occupation of Afghanistan 18 years later.

Quote:


It's not a transaction Gandalf. It's a war.

Quote:


Only problem is, it would have never happened at all.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2019 at 9:08am:


They invaded because Bin Laden declared war on them and attacked them repeatedly when they tried to ignore him. So they killed Bin Laden.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2019 at 10:29am:


They were at war Gandalf. Lets try this real slowly. Bin laden declared war on America. He attacked repeatedly, each time escalating the scale of the attack. I've been telling you this for dozens of pages and you are still giving me the "me no speaka da english" routine.

The astonishing incompetence and stupidity of Muslims is not the same thing as benign intent.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2019 at 12:01pm:


There are plenty of ways to prosecute war. You could blow up buildings full of innocent people. You could invade. Either way, people are going to die Gandalf.

And we are fundamentally disagreeing, because you keep asking me if establishing democracy was sufficient justification for the invasion.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2019 at 1:12pm:


Excuse me, FD, are you saying Uncle invaded to blow up buildings of innocent people/Muselmen? When he could have just done a quick Special Forces op in Pakistan?

Is that what you mean by Freeeedom? Please explain.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2019 at 10:07pm:


To be fair FD, I'm actually the one exploring alternatives, while you are doggedly stuck to the idea that only one solution existed, and if you don't/didn't support that solution - you are necessarily a taliban apologist.

And yet, I've cited US official themselves who were involved with pre- 9/11 dealings with the taliban, saying that not trying to work out a deal with the taliban to capture or kill bin Laden represented a "missed opportunity". I've cited the revelation that the taliban foreign minister himself, someone who had close access to the supreme leader Mullah Omar, reached out to the US through Pakistani channels to warn them about a possible attack before 9/11, and clearly expressed his fear that OBL would "ruin the guesthouse". Then I referenced the envoys sent by the Taliban to Washington to try and thrash out a pipeline deal - dispelling this myth that you keep running with that the taliban would never entertain working or cooperating with "the great satan" (a phrase not even used by them, but by Iranians).

Respectfully, I think its unreasonable to insist that no viable alternatives existed - in view of what we know about the taliban (pragmatic and self-preserving) as well as the evidence of them willing to and actually reaching out to the US to help them deal with what they clearly identified as a millstone around their neck (ie OBL).

And by the way, saying all that is not apologising or supporting the taliban.