Mexico is not South Sudan or Afghanistan, failed states ruled by warlords
I’ll note that for the latter, it’s a failed state ruled by warlords because the US rolled in and fucked everything up.
But Taliban was in power before the 2001 invasion.
Okay, and? Like them or hate them (jk you should hate them) but they had a state; it wasn’t “a failed state ruled by warlords”.
That’s debatable
No it’s not? A failed state is one in which the state can’t punish a significant amount of non-state sanctioned violence, which wasn’t the case in Afghanistan.
I suppose if you use that definition then when America invaded it became a failed state run by warlords and now it has recovered.
Yeah exactly. Now, being a non-failed state, they can start the long, gruelling process of cultural and political evolution. That’s why you’re hearing about Afghani human rights activists now but not ten years ago.
“this film is dedicated to the brave mujahideen fighters of afghanistan”
No, it’s a failed state because the cartels have more power than the government. Stop blaming your own country, traitor.
Afghanistan was all fucked up long before that.
I mean it wasn’t exactly a shining example of progress and order, but it wasn’t a failed state.
Arguably, Afghanistan has never been united as a nation in the way we think about it, at least not for long. The cycle seems to be short decades of control under some power followed by decades of decentralization and local powers.
This statement is only relevant if your knowledge of history started in 1980.
I mean given that the war on terror started in 2001, we don’t need to go back any further than 1980.
Well then, I guess it was perfect and stable prior to 2001, no need to investigate further!
