Taliban: we won the war

[Bodi]

In the case of Afghanistan, America and their puppet government are seen as the oppressors. We keep thinking all peoples want our form of government and our society. We are constantly shocked and then angry when a nation says 'no thanks' to the American Dream...

But... McDonald's?

Neither Iran nor Iraq were third world nations then. Iraq has been reduced to that state now, sure, but there's nothing third world about Iran. Iran is a very modern, prosperous nation.

2nd World... not 1st World though... emerging.

Surprised that it took the Taliban that long to declare victory.

From what I saw reported, the US hasn't lost a single solider in Afghanistan in the last 18 months, and there are only a few thousands there. The locations where they are are relatively secure, and provide a base of operations for CIA and other Intel operations to 'keep tabs' on what the Taliban are up to.
Seems presence in Afghanistan has intel benefits.

Pulling all that out was stated as effectively blinding the US as to what the Taliban were doing, as blind as we were prior to 9/11.

If the point is to reduce overseas deployed troops, why not reduce the number of troops in relatively peaceful locations and maintain the small presence in Afghanistan?

I bet we still back up the Afghan Army by bombing the shit out of the Taliban if requested...

 

[Grand Mal]

In the case of Afghanistan, America and their puppet government are seen as the oppressors. We keep thinking all peoples want our form of government and our society. We are constantly shocked and then angry when a nation says 'no thanks' to the American Dream...

Afghanis have been hiding beside a road waiting for their enemy to come for centuries. And they've been winning for centuries because their enemies always eventually realize that nothing in Afghanistan is worth dying for, especially since the Afghanis are willing to die for it.

 

[Grand Mal]

They didn't win... we are simply leaving, like Vietnam. But I can see it from their point of view... their objective? Us out. They did it.

Post 127.

 

[Bodi]

Nobody wins in war but the Taliban are claiming victory and I'm simply pointing out how stupid that statement is.

I also have to wonder who actually supports the Taliban in the first place?
They seem like terrible people who hate women and think anything but reading the Koran is a sin.
There's just nothing even slightly appealing about them, I honestly don't understand why anyone would willingly join them.

Amazingly though... we have seen dipshits actually leave First World Nations like the USA and the UK in order to go to join ISIS, and some women went to produce children for them.

Un****ingbelievable how ****ed up some people are.

Afghanis have been hiding beside a road, waiting for their enemy to come, for centuries. And they've been winning for centuries because their enemies always eventually realize that nothing in Afghanistan is worth dying for, especially since the Afghanis are willing to die for it.

Pretty much spot on...

If by "Won the war" they mean lost every major battle and had to resort to sending out waves of suicide bombers because they got so thoroughly pummeled then yeah, maybe they did.
In that case, I could claim I can beat Micheal Jordan at Basketball by staying on court longer.
Yes, he may have scored 9k points and dunked on me all day long but I was on could for 2 whole minutes longer than him so take that Mr I've got my own shoe line Jordan!

You got owned!!!!!!!!

What a thoroughly ridiculous post.

 

[cpwill]

So how much longer should we stay there? And give me a number please. Otherwise you're just another clueless liberal basher.

Time is irrelevant. Either achieving U.S. foreign policy goals is plausible and worth the anticipated cost (in which case you do that), or it isn't (in which case you don't).

In this case, our goal of disrupting EXOPS plotting within Afghanistan ("No More 9/11's") can either be met at an acceptable cost (in which case we stay and do that), or it can't (in which case we should immediately leave). Regardless, "It's Been X Many Years" is not a relevant factor.

 

[lurchadams]

Time is irrelevant. Either achieving U.S. foreign policy goals is plausible and worth the anticipated cost (in which case you do that), or it isn't (in which case you don't).

In this case, our goal of disrupting EXOPS plotting within Afghanistan ("No More 9/11's") can either be met at an acceptable cost (in which case we stay and do that), or it can't (in which case we should immediately leave). Regardless, "It's Been X Many Years" is not a relevant factor.

Yeah, we all know all that. So again - how many more years in Afghanistan will be acceptable to Republicans. What's their plan? Just throwing darts at Biden might be fun for them, but it does no one any good.

Republicans are such ****ing traitorous, negligent idiots. The last 5 years have proven that without at doubt. They don't give a shit about national security or safety in Afghanistan. They just want to score political points.

 

[craig]

Afghanistan: 'We have won the war, America has lost', say Taliban

I tend to agree. The Taliban are still around, still controls parts of Afghanistan, and will probably be in charge of all of it within a few years. America is leaving and the people they went to unseat from power will be back in charge.

Afghanistan borders China.

 

[cpwill]

Yeah, we all know all that. So again - how many more years in Afghanistan will be acceptable to Republicans. What's their plan? Just throwing darts at Biden might be fun for them, but it does no one any good.

I can't tell you what Republicans are saying time-wise other than the Republican administration we just had, who wanted us out by May 1, instead of Biden's announced Sept 11.

That being said, "how many more years" is irrelevant. Either the foreign policy goal is plausible and worth the cost or it isn't.

Republicans are such ****ing traitorous, negligent idiots. The last 5 years have proven that without at doubt. They don't give a shit about safety in Afghanistan. They just want to score political points.

The turnaround by some here is indeed quite telling. Others are more consistent.

 

[lurchadams]

I can't tell you what Republicans are saying time-wise other than the Republican administration we just had, who wanted us out by May 1, instead of Biden's announced Sept 11.

That being said, "how many more years" is irrelevant. Either the foreign policy goal is plausible and worth the cost or it isn't.



The turnaround by some here is indeed quite telling. Others are more consistent.

It's irrelevant if you don't care about American lives or our national debt.
So, my friend. Again.. how many more years will be acceptable to Republicans? What's they specific counteroffer? What's their plan?

 

[cpwill]

That being said, "how many more years" is irrelevant. Either the foreign policy goal is plausible and worth the cost or it isn't.

It's irrelevant if you don't care about American lives or our national debt.

I'm confused - help me out here. How can I better say "Either the foreign policy goal is plausible and worth the cost or it isn't." so that inclusion of "worth the cost" (which recognizes and weighs the cost) is clearer?

On a personal note - I've deployed multiple times to Afghanistan. I've buried friends in Afghanistan, and watched others come back broken in a variety of ways from the experience. When I talk about the cost, in terms of American lives, I have a somewhat good idea of what I am discussing.

So, my friend. Again.. how many more years will be acceptable to Republicans? What's they specific counteroffer? What's their plan?

(shrug) As I said, the only Republican Plan I've seen tied to a timeline was Trump's plan to get out by 1 May, which Biden changed to 11 Sept. And, again, the number of years is irrelevant. Either the foreign policy goal is plausibly achievable and worth the cost, or it isn't.

 

[lurchadams]

I'm confused - help me out here. How can I better say "Either the foreign policy goal is plausible and worth the cost or it isn't." so that inclusion of "worth the cost" (which recognizes and weighs the cost) is clearer?

On a personal note - I've deployed multiple times to Afghanistan. I've buried friends in Afghanistan, and watched others come back broken in a variety of ways from the experience. When I talk about the cost, in terms of American lives, I have a somewhat good idea of what I am discussing.


(shrug) As I said, the only Republican Plan I've seen tied to a timeline was Trump's plan to get out by 1 May, which Biden changed to 11 Sept. And, again, the number of years is irrelevant. Either the foreign policy goal is plausibly achievable and worth the cost, or it isn't.

I am glad you told me that about you. Much respect and I'm sorry, but I'm just so ****ing furious at the Republicans. They are such ****ing ******s. If Sept 11th is too early GIVE US YOUR PLAN YOU ****ING ASSHOLES! Not YOU, I'm referring the our disgusting Republican elected officials.

****ING NEGLIGENT TRAITORS - ALL OF THEM!

 

[cpwill]

I am glad you told me that about you. Much respect and I'm sorry, but I'm just so ****ing furious at the Republicans.

Cool. Welcome to the club - we meet at the bar and if you buy me a Scotch, I tell stories.

That being said:

They are such ****ing ******s. If Sept 11th is too early GIVE US YOUR PLAN YOU ****ING ASSHOLES! Not YOU, I'm referring the our disgusting Republican elected officials.

****ING NEGLIGENT TRAITORS - ALL OF THEM!

The only GOP plan I am aware of with a timeline is still the 01 May date, which was the policy of the previous (Republican) administration

 

[Bodi]

I'm confused - help me out here. How can I better say "Either the foreign policy goal is plausible and worth the cost or it isn't." so that inclusion of "worth the cost" (which recognizes and weighs the cost) is clearer?

On a personal note - I've deployed multiple times to Afghanistan. I've buried friends in Afghanistan, and watched others come back broken in a variety of ways from the experience. When I talk about the cost, in terms of American lives, I have a somewhat good idea of what I am discussing.


(shrug) As I said, the only Republican Plan I've seen tied to a timeline was Trump's plan to get out by 1 May, which Biden changed to 11 Sept. And, again, the number of years is irrelevant. Either the foreign policy goal is plausibly achievable and worth the cost, or it isn't.

I am glad you told me that about you. Much respect and I'm sorry, but I'm just so ****ing furious at the Republicans. They are such ****ing ******s. If Sept 11th is too early GIVE US YOUR PLAN YOU ****ING ASSHOLES! Not YOU, I'm referring the our disgusting Republican elected officials.

****ING NEGLIGENT TRAITORS - ALL OF THEM!

Cool. Welcome to the club - we meet at the bar and if you buy me a Scotch, I tell stories.

That being said:

The only GOP plan I am aware of with a timeline is still the 01 May date, which was the policy of the previous (Republican) administration

A good exchange to read.

We need more conversation, understanding, empathy, cohesion
and patience with each other on many of these issues.

That occurred here.

 

[PoS]

They didn't win... we are simply leaving, like Vietnam. But I can see it from their point of view... their objective? Us out. They did it.

Which means they did win. But I'm okay with that. Afghanistan isnt worth giving up American lives for.

 

[Bodi]

Which means they did win. But I'm okay with that. Afghanistan isnt worth giving up American lives for.

It is an argument bound with parameters... we leave and we did not lose, we possibly just did not meet our all of our objectives and they want us out so they win? Our version of what constitutes losing is not merely leaving... we set up a government, we built infrastructure... etc. Leaving does not always equate to losing.

 

[PoS]

It is an argument bound with parameters... we leave and we did not lose, we possibly just did not meet our all of our objectives and they want us out so they win? Our version of what constitutes losing is not merely leaving... we set up a government, we built infrastructure... etc. Leaving does not always equate to losing.

Maybe not, but the Taliban are right when they said they won. If an insurgent force survives and remains to claim the battlefield, its a win for them.

 

[Bodi]

Maybe not, but the Taliban are right when they said they won. If an insurgent force survives and remains to claim the battlefield, its a win for them.

I don't disagree... although I would add that it is more complicated that that as well...

 

[RetiredUSN]

It is an argument bound with parameters... we leave and we did not lose, we possibly just did not meet our all of our objectives and they want us out so they win? Our version of what constitutes losing is not merely leaving... we set up a government, we built infrastructure... etc. Leaving does not always equate to losing.

Winning is about forcing your will on your opponent.

We failed at doing so.

We lost to the JV team.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Neither Iran nor Iraq were third world nations then. Iraq has been reduced to that state now, sure, but there's nothing third world about Iran. Iran is a very modern, prosperous nation.

Bwahahahahahaha!

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Time is irrelevant. Either achieving U.S. foreign policy goals is plausible and worth the anticipated cost (in which case you do that), or it isn't (in which case you don't).

In this case, our goal of disrupting EXOPS plotting within Afghanistan ("No More 9/11's") can either be met at an acceptable cost (in which case we stay and do that), or it can't (in which case we should immediately leave). Regardless, "It's Been X Many Years" is not a relevant factor.

That’s silly. “We need to go to war to stop another 9/11. OUr timeline is infinity”.

Besides, this country shrugged off 600k covid deaths. There is no longer an argument to be made that military action is justifiable based on fear of future deaths. That ship last year.

God help the next Republican president that tries to send our kids to war.

 

[cpwill]

That’s silly. “We need to go to war to stop another 9/11. OUr timeline is infinity”.

Not really. So long as the Soviet Union was a threat to Western Europe, for example, we kept large numbers of troops in Germany (they are still there now, in the face of an increasingly dangerous Russia). The deployment was not time-based, but conditions based (and the story is the same on the Korean peninsula). This is something similar - though whereas the condition in the Cold War could be summed up as "Protect Western Europe", the condition here could be summed up as "No More 9/11's".

Besides, this country shrugged off 600k covid deaths. There is no longer an argument to be made that military action is justifiable based on fear of future deaths. That ship last year.

God help the next Republican president that tries to send our kids to war.

If that's the case, why did we get upset about the death of George Floyd?


Simply because people die from Cause A does not mean we are willing to consider their deaths from Cause B to be acceptable.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

So was I.


You keep claiming that, and have offered exactly zero proof that it would.

Perhaps I should have bolded the term "likely"? Jimmy Carter writing love letters to the Ayatollah clearly did not work. Parking an aircraft carrier and issuing ultimatums probably would have worked.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

If that's the case, why get upset about the death of George Floyd?


Simply because people die from Cause A does not mean we are willing to accept their deaths from Cause B.

It’s not about Floyd himself necessarily, he’s a symbol of a broken system. Black people have a right to not be killed over traffic stops and such. That’s about pursuit of happiness, not preventing death.

Yes, I understand: if there is no massive military contract involved or brown people to shoot at, we are powerless as a nation and life goes on. If 3000 people die due to our foreign policy decisions, then we must start 2 twenty year wars to keep us “safe”.

 

[cpwill]

It’s not about Floyd himself necessarily, he’s a symbol of a broken system. Black people have a right to not be killed over traffic stops and such.

Why should we care if COVID deaths mean we should no longer care about any other deaths?

That’s about pursuit of happiness, not preventing death.

COVID deaths equally prevent the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, I understand: if there is no massive military contract involved or brown people to shoot at, we are powerless as a nation and life goes on. If 3000 people die due to our foreign policy decisions, then we must start 2 twenty year wars to keep us “safe”.

Evidently you do not understand But that's expected - very few Americans bother to learn anything about foreign policy other than what their tribe teaches them to chant.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

COVID deaths equally prevent the pursuit of happiness.

Right, which is why it’s silly for anyone to insist that we need to go kill Brown people and destroy things in order to prevent (maybe) some future terrorist thing that won’t kill 600k people.

Evidently you do not understand But that's expected - very few Americans bother to learn anything about foreign policy other than what their tribe teaches them to chant.

right right, tribe narrative sheeple blah blah blah. You guys spend all day regurgitating the same failed talking points Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson told you to be mad about, which they got from Rush Limbaugh 20 years ago.

Nothing new under the conservative-argument-sphere.