If you bother to actually read the works of historians, you wouldn't say such a silly thing. CIA directors, presidents, Brzezinski (the CIA's lead strategist), the Clintons, and countless historian who documents the region, have publically admitted this. And not only did the US (and NATO) create the Taliban, it continues to both pipe money to the Taliban and give them leadership positions within the Afghan government.
There is no universal law saying that "wars are the planet's way of getting rid of bad, barbaric people who are deemed by the planet to be waste". That is a sick thing to say. You are making a value judgement and deciding who deserves to live or die; this is the bedrock of fascism.
Besides, a cursory look at the world will tell you that it is often the stupid and the violent who survive en masse. Power survives and perpetuates itself. The good die.
The US invasion of Panama, which killed more people than whom died on 9/11, was done because of boredom and not land, money and markets? All that energy was expelled into funding dictators and planning invasions because people were bored? Holy crap. Reading this stuff melts my braincells.
The Napoleonic wars were due to boredom? WW2 was due to boredom? The conquest of the West Indies was due to boredom? France's current raping of Haiti is due to boredom? No, you are too lazy to learn - you deem facts boring - so you concoct weird, mystical, pseudo-religious explanations for history and human behaviour.
You understand this makes no sense? Afghanistan was not backwards before the CIA started attempting regime changes. When these regime changes failed, it then created the Taliban. Then Afghanistan became increasingly backwards. Meena Kamal was killed in the late 1980s, when the Taliban had conquered Afghanistan.
No child is born wanting to be a criminal or outcast.
No it's not. This is a stupid thing to say. Yes, everyone dies and becomes biomass, but the Earth does not have a "cleaning system" which "triggers wars" to "get rid of people it deems waste".
And the slaughter of the Native Indians was nothing but a place to vent? Some colonialists were bored, decided to "vent" on some Indians, and team up with the Planetary Cleaning System to do a little spring cleaning? Holy crap, man.
Listen, I will agree that all violence has a stupid, psycho-sexual element. A kind of primitive desire to dominate, stick out your penis and metaphorically rape up the place. It is a kind of "venting" of unconscious (usually hyper-masculinist) urges. But you cannot just stop your analysis there and leave it at that.
Operation Windsor, the British coup of Guyana, wasnt done because some sexually repressed Brits wanted to "vent". It was done for economic reasons. The US genocides in Indonesia werent done to "vent", they were done for economic reasons. The slave trade wasn't done to "vent", it was done for economic reasons.
Similarly, those "barbaric people/locals" who resisted my above 3 examples, werent resisting because they wanted to "vent", they resisted because they didnt want to get raped. Their deaths dont make them "waste".
Similarly, those "barbaric people" who assisted the Empires in raping their fellowmen, didnt assist because they wanted to "vent", they assisted for economic reasons.
People with no control deserve to die? You understand that if you believed what you just said, according to all modern neuroscience, you would be justified in killing everyone?
I would love to see you go up to a couple hundred internet addicts, alcoholics or fat people and tell them they deserve to die. Or go up to everyone killed in the Holocaust and tell them they deserved to die; "sorry, you're just waste which the planet needs to clean up".
Russia was run by monarchs/Tsars related to the monachs of Britain. The Bolshiviks kicked them out. The West freaked out and backed Hitler to go north and invade Russia and re-instate the White Army and the monarchs. Hitler, like all Western buddies, turned out to be too much of a psycho. The West then backed Stalin against Hitler. 85-90 percent of Nazi forces were killed by Stalin; though a bad guy, he saved Europe from Naziism. Both dictators were a direct cause of the bigger Empires supporting reactionary movements. France, US and the UK supported the royals instead of genuine democratic movements within Germany and Russia, leading to an extreme extreme right winger in Germany (Hitler, who did their bidding to crush the Spartan league, worker unions and Marxists), and an extreme left winger in Russia (Stalin, who had to become increasingly violent to keep virtually the whole world from taking back Russia and reinstating feudal rule). Violence begets violence.
Stalin had little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was already long dead. Energy is always the culprit that brings down empires. No energy, no empire. The type of energy changes - bio fuels (wood, grain, livestock) to fossil fuels (Coal, Oil), to human energy (slavery, exploitation) - but when they cease to continue to grow with the expanding empire, the empire starts to decline. Russia had severe oil shortages, grain shortages, severe debts, and Saudi Arabia kept flooding the market with oil, thereby decreasing the sale-value of Russian oil. Combine this with the bloated size of the Empire, its stupidly huge military, and the fact that members of the Bolshivik party had been bribed by Westerners to essentially "privatize" Russian assets, and you had a nation which simultaneously ran itself broke and sold itself off.
