Our politicians lied to us for 20 years about Afghanistan !?

[Revoltingest]

With all due respect...it is since high school that I have been wondering why the Americans (and allies) went to Afghanistan.
Why?

You are free to ask me any question, & I'll
always assume that it's sincere & respectful.
You've never disappointed me.

Vengeance...pure & simple.
Knowledge of history & thoughtful planning
went out the window because of passion.
Reminds me of....

 

[Nakosis]

With all due respect...it is since high school that I have been wondering why the Americans (and allies) went to Afghanistan.
Why?

We watched too many westerns growing up.
The cowboy model. Going out and gunning down the bad guy.
We went for Bin Laden.
Why we stayed may be where the conspiracies come in.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm thinking, off the top of my head, a conspiracy being a belief that a group of people working towards an secret/hidden agenda which has no evidence to support it.

Conspiracy is not a belief. It is the act committed by a group of people (called criminal combination in criminology) that decide to stage a situation.
Staging consists in creating fake evidence, or lying about a situation.

Though I feel this process failure has repeated often enough that someone's financial benefit is the only motivation that makes sense.

Exactly. The motive.

 

[Estro Felino]

You are free to ask me any question, & I'll
always assume that it's sincere & respectful.

Vengeance...pure & simple.
Knowledge of history & thoughtful planning
went out the window because of passion.

And then there is the vicious circle.
They used to say: Nine Eleven is for punishing the West for all the interventions in the Middle East...

 

[Altfish]

This article seems legit to me.

The Summary: The Afghan National Security Forces were never actually trained, and what's happened in Afghanistan during the last several weeks was inevitable.

I served in Afghanistan as a US Marine, twice. Here’s the truth in two sentences

It is all about money; defence contractors fund political parties, they expect to get their money back with interest.

 

[Revoltingest]

And then there is the virtuous circle.
They used to say: Nine Eleven is for punishing the West for all the interventions in the Middle East...

"Vicious" circle?
Yes, that's how I see it.
We meddle violently, thinking it's with impunity.
But the enemies we create have other ideas.
And then we are surprised?
Reminds me of Lt Ripley's astonishment at such stupidity....

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

This article seems legit to me.

The Summary: The Afghan National Security Forces were never actually trained, and what's happened in Afghanistan during the last several weeks was inevitable.

I served in Afghanistan as a US Marine, twice. Here’s the truth in two sentences

Our country is lying as soon as they open their mouths, since colonial days.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Were they really lying, or were they just full of faith
that somehow they'd muddle thru to eventual success?
The latter looks more plausible to me.

Democrats wanted war. Republicans wanted war.
Voters wanted war. All struck me as sincere in
believing that we could do what the Russians
couldn't, & fix this ****hole country by militarily
crushing it, occupying it, & throwing money at it.

I vividly remember Vietnam, & learned the lesson.
And I didn't even need to learn Pashtu to see this
being a bottomless rathole.

I’m not a fan of war.

 

[Estro Felino]

Regarding soldiers who knew the war was doomed to failure,
why on Earth would they participate?

It is not soldiers who decide the destination.
I am 100% sure he hoped they would send him to some NATO country, to work tranquilly on a military base.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is not soldiers who decide the destination.
I am 100% sure he hoped they would send him to some NATO country, to work tranquilly on a military base.

I suspect soldiering, being a young man's game, appeals
to a group lacking the benefit of hindsight regarding foreign
policy debacles, but bristling with testosterone, patriotism,
comaraderie, & a penchant for following orders. This isn't a
combination that fosters skepticism & disobedience.

 

[Stevicus]

Beliefs have the properties of inertia & friction.
Once implanted, it takes much force to dislodge them.
I offer religion as a prime example.

Yes, although it doesn't answer the question as to who implanted these beliefs to begin with, and why. Nor does it explain why "unbelievers" are castigated.

I do my part to distinguish between defense & military adventurism.
And to eschew untestable conspiracy theories in favor of voter
responsibility for peaceful foreign policy.
Do I change any minds?
I don't know. But I'm optimistic.

Well, that's the thing. Conspiracy theorists challenge the blind faith in government, so why would you (or anyone else) eschew them? To reject a conspiracy theory is to profess blind faith in government, and that's why voters end up accepting lies and supporting war. It makes no difference whether the conspiracy theories are true or not, just as long as it challenges the government to justify and re-justify everything they do. Every action they take, every decision which is made, must be thoroughly discussed and justified - or else the public should reject it out of hand.

Case in point: It took a motion picture by a conspiracy theorist to force the government to release information they wouldn't have otherwise let the public know about. (President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 - Wikipedia)

Free thinkers should never reject conspiracy theories. Instead, they should turn the tables back on the government and make them prove their case.

 

[Estro Felino]

I suspect soldiering, being a young man's game, appeals
to a group lacking the benefit of hindsight regarding foreign
policy debacles, but bristling with testosterone, patriotism,
comaraderie, & a penchant for following orders. This isn't a
combination that fosters skepticism & disobedience.

I did meet them in Sicily.
I don't think they wanted to be sent to the Middle East.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, although it doesn't answer the question as to who implanted these beliefs to begin with, and why. Nor does it explain why "unbelievers" are castigated.

We're a country born in war, continually challenged by war, & so
successful at it that we believe we can do anything, including fixing
broken countries.
We've had brief periods when we were reluctant, eg, just prior to
WW1 & WW2. So it needn't be a permanent mindset. Recent
failures might give us some pause for a brief spell. But the Afghan
& Iraq debacles will eventually be forgotten.

Well, that's the thing. Conspiracy theorists challenge the blind faith in government, so why would you (or anyone else) eschew them?

The point is not to choose which tribe to belong to, ie, either
trust government vs distrust government. It's about whether
the conspiracy theory is testable, & has an evidence based
cogent argument for it.
In short: A theory must stand or fall on its own merit.

That addresses the unquoted portion of your post.

 

[Revoltingest]

I did meet them in Sicily.
I don't think they wanted to be sent to the Middle East.
My sister even knew one...biblically.

We had many who wanted to go to mideast wars.
One friend really wanted to go to Vietnam. His goal
was to kill commies. He even got a Chinese one.

War is portrayed here as exciting, noble, & necessary.
You get to shoot guns at bad guys, drive big tanks,
& be a "warrior". Notice how the commercials don't show
anyone getting shot.

 

[Stevicus]

We're a country born in war, continually challenged by war, & so
successful at it that we believe we can do anything, including fixing
broken countries.
We've had brief periods when we were reluctant, eg, just prior to
WW1 & WW2. So it needn't be a permanent mindset. Recent
failures might give us some pause for a brief spell. But the Afghan
& Iraq debacles will eventually be forgotten.

True, we're a country born in war, although at the beginning of our existence, we eschewed foreign entanglements and permanent alliances. Our Founders initially favored neutrality, rejecting the idea of playing favorites among nations. Americans didn't fear war (as we fought many during the 19th century), but the World Wars were the major turning point. That's when America's mindset and perceptions about itself and about the rest of the world changed into what it is now.

That's when America stopped being an actual physical country and started to become more of an abstract idea. Patriotism was no longer about defending the actual land, but more about defending ideas, such as "democracy" and "freedom," regardless of what territory we were fighting in.

Most Americans don't even know where a lot of these countries are, so how can they possibly believe that we can build nations if we can't even find them on the map? Don't the voters even bother to look at maps?

The point is not to choose which tribe to belong to, ie, either
trust government vs distrust government. It's about whether
the conspiracy theory is testable, & has an evidence based
cogent argument for it.
In short: A theory must stand or fall on its own merit.

That addresses the unquoted portion of your post.

I would submit that a different standard must be followed when making accusations against government. By definition, government is required to prove their actions are/were justifiable to the people. We're not following the typical "rules of evidence." This is because We The People are the bosses of the government, and an employee has every legal and moral responsibility to report thoroughly and honestly to his employer.

It's not the same thing as proving something in science, nor is it a matter of a court case where someone is being accused of a crime. It's a boss calling his employee on the carpet to explain himself and justify his actions. If he's weaselly and doesn't give straight answers (or says he's "not at liberty to say" to HIS OWN BOSS), then I find that suspicious. That's grounds for termination, at least in an employer-employee relationship.

And that's all the conspiracy theorist has to prove in this case.

 

[Revoltingest]

True, we're a country born in war, although at the beginning of our existence, we eschewed foreign entanglements and permanent alliances. Our Founders initially favored neutrality, rejecting the idea of playing favorites among nations. Americans didn't fear war (as we fought many during the 19th century), but the World Wars were the major turning point. That's when America's mindset and perceptions about itself and about the rest of the world changed into what it is now.

Those things don't alter the fact of near continual war.

That's when America stopped being an actual physical country and started to become more of an abstract idea. Patriotism was no longer about defending the actual land, but more about defending ideas, such as "democracy" and "freedom," regardless of what territory we were fighting in.

Most Americans don't even know where a lot of these countries are, so how can they possibly believe that we can build nations if we can't even find them on the map? Don't the voters even bother to look at maps?

I would submit that a different standard must be followed when making accusations against government. By definition, government is required to prove their actions are/were justifiable to the people. We're not following the typical "rules of evidence." This is because We The People are the bosses of the government, and an employee has every legal and moral responsibility to report thoroughly and honestly to his employer.

It's not the same thing as proving something in science, nor is it a matter of a court case where someone is being accused of a crime. It's a boss calling his employee on the carpet to explain himself and justify his actions. If he's weaselly and doesn't give straight answers (or says he's "not at liberty to say" to HIS OWN BOSS), then I find that suspicious. That's grounds for termination, at least in an employer-employee relationship.

And that's all the conspiracy theorist has to prove in this case.

Those things don't make a case for the MIC conspiracy theory.

 

[Stevicus]

Those things don't alter the fact of near continual war.

Those things don't make a case for the MIC conspiracy theory.

Then what's your explanation for America's shift from a country eschewing permanent alliances and foreign entanglements to a country which actively embraces these things? You can't just toss off another "the voters wanted it" answer. Did the voters ask for it in 1920? In 1940? Pinpoint the moment where the voters actually changed their opinions and supported world war and demonstrate the issues in those elections which might have caused them to change their minds.

You make a case for this, then show me clear specific evidence, not just meaningless vague generalities about what the voters ostensibly want.

Here's a perfect example: In 1964, the LBJ campaign put forth a commercial which painted Goldwater as a warmonger (the famous "little girl with the daisy" ad). If the public wanted war, they would have voted for Goldwater. Since they voted against Goldwater, then we can assume that they didn't want war and that LBJ lied to them about being a warmonger. Is that LBJ's fault for lying, or is it the voters' fault for believing him? And if you're saying it is the voters' fault, then WHY did they believe him?

At least, try to show me that you actually KNOW what you're talking about here. Your inadequate short responses and throwaway one-liners don't really show me much.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then what's your explanation for America's shift from a country eschewing permanent alliances and foreign entanglements...

I don't see that having happened during my lifetime.
It's been one foreign entanglement after another.
And this foreign policy preceded me.

....to a country which actively embraces these things? You can't just toss off another "the voters wanted it" answer.

Oh, you silly silly man. Trying to dismiss my clearly
laid out correlation between votes & approval of war
as merely something to "toss off".
Let me know if you'll ever be serious about this.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't see that having happened during my lifetime.
It's been one foreign entanglement after another.
And this foreign policy preceded me.

It's necessary to study some history, not just rely on what you remember during your own lifetime.

Oh, you silly silly man. Trying to dismiss my clearly
laid out correlation between votes & approval of war
as merely something to "toss off".
Let me know if you'll ever be serious about this.

You should already know that correlation does not mean causation.

If you're not serious about this, then just say so. I asked you to cite specifics and to make a stronger case for your claim, yet all you can do is accuse me of not being serious? That's just dishonest, man.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's necessary to study some history, not just rely on what you remember during your own lifetime.

You presume I haven't.
But I'm not the one ignoring history in pursit of a bogus conspiracy theory.

That's just dishonest, man.

An ironic accusation to make.