We aren't there to "uplift" them. We're there to stop safe havens for terrorist groups from being set up by the Taliban, a group that was formed in and supported by Pakistan.
If America was taken over by a group that violated human rights like the Taliban, that was refused to even be recognized as the legitimate government by the overwhelming majority of nations in the world, and was the subject of binding UN sanctions, yes I would sympathize with the invaders. But that's just me.
> We're there to stop safe havens for terrorist groups from being set up by the Taliban, a group that was formed in and supported by Pakistan.
These people, including Al-Qaeda, where receiving funds from the US (with the help of Pakistan no doubt) to support their struggle against the soviets.
The Taliban's origins are in Afghanistan, which was later abandoned ... which is regrettable, since the aid it needed for building schools and hospitals was a only a fraction of the money already spent in warfare by the US.
I guess this is what you get when you're having the God syndrome. If you're going to interfere with other people's business, at least do it right.
rdl's post that started this thread discussed contracting in Afghanistan, and replies to that post discussed overseas deployments in a general sense. In fact the "bullets in the bad guys" comment that set off this thread comes in rdl's point 2 about combat going on in Afghanistan and not Iraq. It wasn't a trick or deflection. My comments about the Taliban also go for Saddam and his Ba'ath party.
If America was taken over by a group that violated human rights like the Taliban, that was refused to even be recognized as the legitimate government by the overwhelming majority of nations in the world, and was the subject of binding UN sanctions, yes I would sympathize with the invaders. But that's just me.