• driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Americans with boots on the ground for 20 years in Afghanistan and could not beat the Taliban. But sure, this time will be different.

      • jmp242
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        I hear this a lot, but what would beating the Taliban involve? While the US was there, the Taliban was at best in hiding, it was not holding territory. If you mean removing the very idea of the Taliban from the world? That is both hard to do and arguably also a genocide, at least a cultural one. The US has been good at that, but it’s also frowned on in the current world - see Gaza headlines.

        This is also why I’d suggest it’s kind of impossible to both not be the worst of the colonialist systems and stop terrorism (and it’s kind of unclear that even the colonial cultural suppression / conversion / excesses / crimes actually would stop terrorism).

        • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          what would beating the Taliban involve?

          What about taking more than 5 minutes to the Taliban to come back in power after the us left?

          • jmp242
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            That seems a strange definition to me - so if a boxer gets back up after losing the match, well his opponent didn’t beat him in that fight?

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Are you under the impression that the US military and the Taliban were engaged in friendly competition for no reason whatsoever, just a bit of international banter?

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      We don’t have healthcare because there’s profits to be made by exploiting our needs. It honestly has nothing to do with the military.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Consequently, they will find out soon why Americans don’t have universal healthcare…

      And why do you think that is?

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          That would be what I assumed they were getting at too, but it doesn’t really pass the sniff test. The US spends more on healthcare (both per capita and as a percentage of GDP) than any country with universal healthcare-- by switching to a universal single-payer system, they could free up more money to spend on war.

          Americans don’t have universal healthcare because that would mean insurance companies make less money.

    • yogurt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      bombs wedding, Osprey bricks into the ocean, Navy SEAL starts dealing meth

      “So basically it’s like that but with hospitals.”