Those who left and those who could not flee speak of a country in ruins and decry the world’s apathy towards the humanitarian crisis and the lack of rights, mainly for women, which a UN report describes as ‘gender apartheid’
If you believe that the war was one man’s and not the nation’s, then the US obviously didn’t lose any war according to your definition.
You’re making broad political assumptions based on the physical appearance of George Bush, which is not a very convincing argument.
You allege bush had “intel”, that he didn’t listen to anybody, and he felt he had all the answers, but you aren’t providing a thesis, evidence, context, examples, or drawing any conclusions from these assumptions. You’re just complaining about assumptions you made up.
Saying “all we had to do was go to Pakistan, and we would’ve gotten Osama a lot earlier” is probably the least-sensical assumption you’re making.
That was the whole point of finding him, his whereabouts were unknown.
You might as well get angry at homicide detectives for finding killers. “Gee, you know if you just went straight to the murderer:s house that you didn’t know the location of, you would have arrested him much sooner. Don’t know why you bothered with all those clues and evidence for years and didn’t just meet him at his hiding spot right away.”
They had to find bin laden before they knew where he was. Bin laden was in something like a half dozen different safe houses in an area of the size of Texas, supported and protected by a terrorist organization spread across more than two countries that by themselves added up to the size of Mexico, and most of the hijackers of the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia.
deleted by creator
If you believe that the war was one man’s and not the nation’s, then the US obviously didn’t lose any war according to your definition.
You’re making broad political assumptions based on the physical appearance of George Bush, which is not a very convincing argument.
You allege bush had “intel”, that he didn’t listen to anybody, and he felt he had all the answers, but you aren’t providing a thesis, evidence, context, examples, or drawing any conclusions from these assumptions. You’re just complaining about assumptions you made up.
Saying “all we had to do was go to Pakistan, and we would’ve gotten Osama a lot earlier” is probably the least-sensical assumption you’re making.
That was the whole point of finding him, his whereabouts were unknown.
You might as well get angry at homicide detectives for finding killers. “Gee, you know if you just went straight to the murderer:s house that you didn’t know the location of, you would have arrested him much sooner. Don’t know why you bothered with all those clues and evidence for years and didn’t just meet him at his hiding spot right away.”
They had to find bin laden before they knew where he was. Bin laden was in something like a half dozen different safe houses in an area of the size of Texas, supported and protected by a terrorist organization spread across more than two countries that by themselves added up to the size of Mexico, and most of the hijackers of the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia.