The United States invaded Afghanistan in October, 2001, largely in retaliation for the attacks of September 11. Although the invasion was executed at the command of President George W. Bush, it was planned during the Clinton-Gore administration.
I remember hearing in 1999 or 2000 about the Taliban blowing up the 900-year-old statue of Buddha (update: actually, 2 Buddhas, one of them 1200 years old and the other 1500), the largest such statue in the world, because it somehow offended their sensibilities; I remember saying to myself "those guys are trouble, and something needs to be done about it". So when we invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11, I (reluctantly) saw it as probably a good thing over all; non-violence did not seem to be an option. The only caveat was: what was the connection? Afghanistan condemned the 9/11 attacks. (I remember hearing this with great relief.) Instead of invading them, why didn't we enter into a cooperative arrangement to help them with their terrorist problem? Was this idea even discussed? Sure, the opposition leader (Ahmad Shah Massoud) had been assassinated, but did the Taliban actually claim they harbored no terrorists? I don't remember hearing anything about that. --Woozle 20:49, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
- Update: I've learned a lot since 2006. The whole thing is a sham: we created the Taliban to get the USSR out of Afghanistan in the 1970s. We're not there to spread liberty; we're there for war profiteering and (as of 2010) mineral exploitation. We have no right to do this, but America (as a people) no longer controls its government, and there's not currently anything we can do to stop this. --Woozle 01:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)