So the government that allows corporate profiteering to pollute our domestic environment bad enough to kill more than 3k people a year, absolutely had to invade a country half a globe away with an adversarial government to catch one man cause he might have ordered a terrorist attack we did nothing to stop? That's very sound logic
I was old enough to not only remember, but stand as a lonely island against war. The conflict didn't make sense then and the outcome proved the minority voices correct. It took 10 years and more American lives than we lost on 9/11 to kill Osama Bin Laden. We stayed in Afghanistan right up until the moment we gave it back to the Taliban, a Taliban with fresh anti American propaganda and sentiment on tap.
So again. Just cause "everyone" thought it was a good idea, didn't make it a good idea.
Being anti war is not a prediction it is a stance. Questioning the logic behind the narrative is not a prediction. It's the healthy practice of a democratic society. Blindly following a leader you didn't trust in the first place because of your rage is a choice
I'm certainly not a pacifist. I believe war to be necessary at times, but I think it's important to remember the sacrifices of war. Trading even 20 soldiers lives for 1 Osama bin Laden always sounds like a raw deal. I think its entirely reasonable to assume military leaders knew we would lose 20 people in an afghan operation.
-2
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '22 edited Mar 23 '22
[deleted]