Plankton

5y

The status quo was we had give or take 10k troops and spent around $100 billion yearly, probably significantly less, with casualties significantly under triple digits. So what do we gain by leaving? We get chump change and not enough troops to do anything else. Meanwhile in Kabul alone 4 million people are now under Taliban rule that previously weren't. Is 10k troops and an insignificant amount of our annual tax dollars not a reasonable price to pay to protect those people? No one was asking to reignite the war to what it was a decade ago.

AR15

5y

Why not drone strike the leaders of the taliban i dont get why we need boots on the ground.

Plankton

5y

The status quo was we had give or take 10k troops and spent around $100 billion yearly, probably significantly less, with casualties significantly under triple digits. So what do we gain by leaving? We get chump change and not enough troops to do anything else. Meanwhile in Kabul alone 4 million people are now under Taliban rule that previously weren't. Is 10k troops and an insignificant amount of our annual tax dollars not a reasonable price to pay to protect those people? No one was asking to reignite the war to what it was a decade ago.

AR15

5y

Why not drone strike the leaders of the taliban i dont get why we need boots on the ground.

space0cadet

5y

· edited

this is such a greasy american take - that reeks of white saviorism - "next time its gonna be different because were saving these brown people from themselves! who cares if this government is viewed as legitimate by the population, muh human rights! "

queue montage of devastation of iraq, vietnam, korea, iran, syria, venezuela, peru, indonesia, chile, haiti, ghana, congo, grenada, yugoslavia, libya, bolivia and most recently, afghanistan

like, whats with the amnesia? US intervention is havoc to these countries. just one example, they completely flattened the DPRK during the korean war, like 90% of their buildings were completely destroyed. idk if you know, but the taliban that the U.S. was f***ing fighting was financed and created by the US meddling there 40 years ago ..furthermore, the u.s. doesn't invade because of human rights - this is such a liberalized, construed view of the world. it invades for resources and geopolitical control.

Saint Aquinas

5y

Do you support bringing in refugees then?

space0cadet

5y

yep

Plankton

5y

The status quo was we had give or take 10k troops and spent around $100 billion yearly, probably significantly less, with casualties significantly under triple digits. So what do we gain by leaving? We get chump change and not enough troops to do anything else. Meanwhile in Kabul alone 4 million people are now under Taliban rule that previously weren't. Is 10k troops and an insignificant amount of our annual tax dollars not a reasonable price to pay to protect those people? No one was asking to reignite the war to what it was a decade ago.

Saint Aquinas

5y

100 billion with 10k people after spending trillions on a war with thousands dead is a lot to ask when there's no guarantee we would win or be able to withdraw soon. After 20 years we still have to spend 100 billion and send 10k troops? Yeah, issa no for me dawg

Plankton

5y

We weren't even spending 100 bill that's just the average, it's lower now. Idk why you think that's a big commitment for the USA.

Saint Aquinas

5y

How is that not also an extension of white saviorism?

deadacc

5y

what's the difference between immediate sheltering of refugees facing imminent death versus invading people, setting up a clearly inept puppet government and continuously murdering civilians in the name of salvation from their own tendencies as a less civilized people.

deadacc

5y

what's the difference between immediate sheltering of refugees facing imminent death versus invading people, setting up a clearly inept puppet government and continuously murdering civilians in the name of salvation from their own tendencies as a less civilized people.

Saint Aquinas

5y

I dont support sending troops into the middle east.

deadacc

5y

never said you didn't

you're just caping for white saviorism w a weird false equivalence

deadacc

5y

never said you didn't

you're just caping for white saviorism w a weird false equivalence

Saint Aquinas

5y

If I was caping for white saviorism, I would be supporting troops in that region. I'm asking why is supporting refugees not an example of white saviorism and you seem to be upset at the relevance. It isnt a false equivalence. You just dont want to look hypocritical

deadacc

5y

you understand "white saviorism" is a specific term right

it doesn't just mean somebody who may be white helping somebody

Saint Aquinas

5y

Yes and given his explanation and rant about why trying to wage war for the 100th time is a bad idea, I asked him a relevant question about refugees, given the historical incompetence of voters, the left, and government when it comes to refugees.

deadacc

5y

you mean liberals lol

and what is the self serving interest in taking in refugees ?

Saint Aquinas

5y

Whatever word you guys want to use to pretend you guys arent in the same wing of philosophy to make urself feel better is fine. I'm gonna still call you what I did.

The same self-serving interest they use to justify their savior complex: to make themselves feel better and give themselves a duty or obligation only they can achieve.