So do you care about the civilians, or not? It seems possible US engagement saves more civilians than it kills. At least that is presumably the general idea.

Unlikely. There were massacres during the Taliban rule outside of war, but it was at much lower scale than in the current war, and US only helps taliban grow by its intervention, it seems, if you look at the numbers of fighters.

It's not like killing a person with certain beliefs stops the beliefs from spreading.

So you think it would be OK to live under Taliban rule? They didn't come into power by democratic elections, it seems.

Also, killing people with beliefs does stop beliefs from spreading. How much of Afghanistan do the Taliban control these days, anyway?

Quite a lot: https://thedefensepost.com/2019/05/01/afghanistan-resolute-s...

The idea was that "possible US engagement saves more civilians than it kills", and I was reacting to that, as it is very doubtful.

I didn't say it would be ok to live under Taliban. But there are other weird islamic countries, where I wouldn't want to live either. Do you propose US making war there, too?

The US is in afghan for one reason only, opioids. It's no coincidence that US opioid addiction rates skyrocketed in the years following the Afghan invasion. The big pharma companies benefit from the US controlling the worlds major poppy fields, and in turn they pushed their product unto the masses.

I'm sorry but your explanation makes no sense. Oil is wherever it is located, so you have to go there if you want to take it or protect it. But you can grow poppies in most places. It makes no sense for the US to spend something like a trillion dollars and thousands of lives for something they could grow in California or Texas.

In fact we actually grow opium in Australia.