|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 17 2021 06:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 05:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 05:42 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 17 2021 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 17 2021 04:29 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 04:21 Ryzel wrote:On August 17 2021 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 03:55 Ryzel wrote:On August 17 2021 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 03:20 Oukka wrote:
[quote]
Ask the women in there. Or I guess ask anyone in a situation where they don't have to fear violence if they speak up. If they want Taliban they surely be able to elect them also in a democratic and free election. I find it very lazy to shrug it off as something the majority of the people there want. The speed with which the entire Afghanistan "army" joined the Taliban speaks volumes. This entire thing was a farce. Regardless of what you think about which women actually want freedom, an enormous amount of Afghanistan doesn't want it. This issue is already resolved. There isn't anything left to discuss here. I don't see any world where the last week in Afghanistan (I'm just writing Afg from here on because its just fucking annoying to type) shows any perspective other than "Afg fully and completely rejected western beliefs". If there was annnnny chance of our idealistic world applying to Afg, it wouldn't have looked like this. I don't see how you can look at the current Afg situation and wonder if maybe there is a path to giving women freedom. Its in the dirt, buried, 100 meters underground, with cement on top. And then they built a sky scraper on top of that cement. Edit: if we want to help women in Afg, we should help them move somewhere else. Trying to “fix” afg is a fool’s errand. May as well try to drink the Pacific Ocean. Equal chance of success I mean…I think there’s some more insights that can be gleaned from this discussion. Based on the source linked earlier, it seems the main reason ANA defected so quickly is because the Taliban were destined to win barring foreign assistance. The Afghan people seem done with fighting and want to just move on, no matter what form that takes. I don’t think that’s mutually exclusive with the Western cultural imperialism thing we had going on there, but if the Taliban decides to squash it I doubt the populace will take up arms to fight for it.
I don’t know the specifics of the nation-building approaches that were done, but it seems they were very top-down and more interested in quashing resistance than actual nation-building. It’s very conceivable though, especially in hindsight, to picture an alternate timeline where this whole thing works out (integrate Taliban into unified government early, more outreach to the rural areas, etc.). I wouldn’t throw Afghanistan into the basket of irredeemables and deplorables. EDIT - That being said, moving forward I don’t see a path for freedom for Afghan women anytime soon. You're right that there is nuance here that we technically don't know. Regardless, we DO know that there is no army in Afg that is willing to fight for women's rights. Regardless of how or why they all defected and surrendered, they did. The Taliban now has the entire Afg military under its wing. If the situation wasn't hopeless before (it was), it is now hopeless. When I said the issue is settled, my main point is that the ship sailed. I think it is totttttttttttally insane that there exist people who are like "So how can we salvage this and keep women in school?". It is so incredibly naive and misguided.Other potential things for people who want to have Afg women in schools to explore, if they are looking for impossible things to pat themselves on the back for supporting: - Lets get more abortion clinics in rural alabama - Lets enact reparations across the south While I’m in agreement with you for the most part that there’s not much we can do, international political pressure is a thing that exists. As a country, we could attempt to negotiate with the new Afghan government and either provide some sort of economic incentive for playing nice with us and guaranteeing safety of diplomats/allowing observers in to report on whether they keep their word about women in schools, or hit them with heavy sanctions/embargoes to accomplish the same effect. If the US followed the proper channels to do this, we’d likely have a lot of international support.As a voter in the US, we have the power to raise awareness of these kinds of potential policies through discussion with other voters and writing to politicians, and voting for those who seem to prioritize said policies. It’s not a complete waste of time to talk about these things. Why would they ever in a million years decide to re-write their culture when they just proved their resolve like 12 hours ago? This isn't some fuzzy issue for Afg. They know exactly how they feel and they fought for 20 years to get what they want. The Afg military was a farce. They didn't believe any of our democracy shit. They just played nice until we left, surrendered and tada, now the Taliban is armed to the teeth (again). Or maybe they did care, but not enough to fight for it. Either way, ain't nobody fighting for women in Afg now that the Taliban has complete and total control of a huge military now. I think we need to be very clear: A small % of Afg want any of these things we are trying to give them. They fought for 20 years to prove that. Why would we push the issue further? At least 50% of Afghans want more women's rights man. You've been kinda consistently arguing that only the opinion of Afghan men matters for a while now.. I wouldn't be so sure that being a woman automatically means you're in favor of more women's rights. Women can be traditionalist and conservative, especially if you're a religious woman in rural Afganistan, and believe that the ammount of rights you have is the correct ammount. In fact, we have a wealth of data showing us that conservative women in many, many cultures consistently vote against their best interests. Even in the US. Drone, I get the impression you are used to speaking with Muslims a lot more moderate than rural Afg. I think you are essentially failing to recognize how prominent women voting against women is in WESTERN society, let alone rural Afg. Maybe their interest is just in ending the war. Afghanistan might in some respects be the reverse of the Sandinista situation. Did the people vote for the liberalism of the US or did they vote to end a war that the Sandinistas had no hope of winning against a US prepared to go the distance with a cold war ideology and infinite resources? Likewise, here, are the people siding with the Taliban or are they siding with the group that looks destined to win, if only through sheer attrition, in the end? They are tired of war.
Regardless of how this question is accurately answered, there is no path to a liberal democracy in Afg. That’s kind of my larger point.
|
I certainly agree with you there.
|
|
|
On August 17 2021 07:50 JimmiC wrote:
If there is one, no one has the map. The global community (not just the US) has been terrible at making successful regime changes for the betterment of that countries people.
This might be because the objective of any regime change is not the betterment of that countries people.
|
On August 17 2021 07:50 JimmiC wrote:
If there is one, no one has the map. The global community (not just the US) has been terrible at making successful regime changes for the betterment of that countries people.
Probably someone has the map. But, by the time your country has the excess resources to engage in foreign policy adventurism in the modern age your elites will be decadent and sclerotic, thus ruining any chance your thinner and leaner predecessors would have had.
|
Northern Ireland24956 Posts
On August 17 2021 07:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 06:25 IgnE wrote:On August 17 2021 05:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 05:42 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 17 2021 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 17 2021 04:29 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 04:21 Ryzel wrote:On August 17 2021 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 03:55 Ryzel wrote:On August 17 2021 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
The speed with which the entire Afghanistan "army" joined the Taliban speaks volumes. This entire thing was a farce. Regardless of what you think about which women actually want freedom, an enormous amount of Afghanistan doesn't want it.
This issue is already resolved. There isn't anything left to discuss here. I don't see any world where the last week in Afghanistan (I'm just writing Afg from here on because its just fucking annoying to type) shows any perspective other than "Afg fully and completely rejected western beliefs". If there was annnnny chance of our idealistic world applying to Afg, it wouldn't have looked like this. I don't see how you can look at the current Afg situation and wonder if maybe there is a path to giving women freedom. Its in the dirt, buried, 100 meters underground, with cement on top. And then they built a sky scraper on top of that cement.
Edit: if we want to help women in Afg, we should help them move somewhere else. Trying to “fix” afg is a fool’s errand. May as well try to drink the Pacific Ocean. Equal chance of success I mean…I think there’s some more insights that can be gleaned from this discussion. Based on the source linked earlier, it seems the main reason ANA defected so quickly is because the Taliban were destined to win barring foreign assistance. The Afghan people seem done with fighting and want to just move on, no matter what form that takes. I don’t think that’s mutually exclusive with the Western cultural imperialism thing we had going on there, but if the Taliban decides to squash it I doubt the populace will take up arms to fight for it.
I don’t know the specifics of the nation-building approaches that were done, but it seems they were very top-down and more interested in quashing resistance than actual nation-building. It’s very conceivable though, especially in hindsight, to picture an alternate timeline where this whole thing works out (integrate Taliban into unified government early, more outreach to the rural areas, etc.). I wouldn’t throw Afghanistan into the basket of irredeemables and deplorables. EDIT - That being said, moving forward I don’t see a path for freedom for Afghan women anytime soon. You're right that there is nuance here that we technically don't know. Regardless, we DO know that there is no army in Afg that is willing to fight for women's rights. Regardless of how or why they all defected and surrendered, they did. The Taliban now has the entire Afg military under its wing. If the situation wasn't hopeless before (it was), it is now hopeless. When I said the issue is settled, my main point is that the ship sailed. I think it is totttttttttttally insane that there exist people who are like "So how can we salvage this and keep women in school?". It is so incredibly naive and misguided.Other potential things for people who want to have Afg women in schools to explore, if they are looking for impossible things to pat themselves on the back for supporting: - Lets get more abortion clinics in rural alabama - Lets enact reparations across the south While I’m in agreement with you for the most part that there’s not much we can do, international political pressure is a thing that exists. As a country, we could attempt to negotiate with the new Afghan government and either provide some sort of economic incentive for playing nice with us and guaranteeing safety of diplomats/allowing observers in to report on whether they keep their word about women in schools, or hit them with heavy sanctions/embargoes to accomplish the same effect. If the US followed the proper channels to do this, we’d likely have a lot of international support.As a voter in the US, we have the power to raise awareness of these kinds of potential policies through discussion with other voters and writing to politicians, and voting for those who seem to prioritize said policies. It’s not a complete waste of time to talk about these things. Why would they ever in a million years decide to re-write their culture when they just proved their resolve like 12 hours ago? This isn't some fuzzy issue for Afg. They know exactly how they feel and they fought for 20 years to get what they want. The Afg military was a farce. They didn't believe any of our democracy shit. They just played nice until we left, surrendered and tada, now the Taliban is armed to the teeth (again). Or maybe they did care, but not enough to fight for it. Either way, ain't nobody fighting for women in Afg now that the Taliban has complete and total control of a huge military now. I think we need to be very clear: A small % of Afg want any of these things we are trying to give them. They fought for 20 years to prove that. Why would we push the issue further? At least 50% of Afghans want more women's rights man. You've been kinda consistently arguing that only the opinion of Afghan men matters for a while now.. I wouldn't be so sure that being a woman automatically means you're in favor of more women's rights. Women can be traditionalist and conservative, especially if you're a religious woman in rural Afganistan, and believe that the ammount of rights you have is the correct ammount. In fact, we have a wealth of data showing us that conservative women in many, many cultures consistently vote against their best interests. Even in the US. Drone, I get the impression you are used to speaking with Muslims a lot more moderate than rural Afg. I think you are essentially failing to recognize how prominent women voting against women is in WESTERN society, let alone rural Afg. Maybe their interest is just in ending the war. Afghanistan might in some respects be the reverse of the Sandinista situation. Did the people vote for the liberalism of the US or did they vote to end a war that the Sandinistas had no hope of winning against a US prepared to go the distance with a cold war ideology and infinite resources? Likewise, here, are the people siding with the Taliban or are they siding with the group that looks destined to win, if only through sheer attrition, in the end? They are tired of war. Regardless of how this question is accurately answered, there is no path to a liberal democracy in Afg. That’s kind of my larger point.
Is there not? The current policy is, certifiably not that path, I’m not sure you’ll find some sane person arguing otherwise.
Or if not a liberal democracy, then a dictatorship that is relatively benevolent and upholds certain rights, or whatever.
The West isn’t willing to cede its dominance in the global economic sphere in anything remotely approaching an equitable manner. Why would countries who are globally treated in such an inequitable manner be prompted to be paragons of virtue within their own borders?
I imagine if you time travelled and told a Pacific vet what position Japan holds in the world these days they would consider that more unbelievable than us having a device in our pockets capable of accessing the totality of human knowledge and using it mostly to argue about vaccines.
|
|
|
Extremely pleased with Biden’s speech
|
On August 17 2021 09:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 09:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2021 07:50 JimmiC wrote:
If there is one, no one has the map. The global community (not just the US) has been terrible at making successful regime changes for the betterment of that countries people. This might be because the objective of any regime change is not the betterment of that countries people. Maybe not the number one priority, but often talked about whether it is a communist revolutuon or liberation to a liberal dempcracy. And if either accomplished it, the new system might survive. Edit: i should say ongoing. Because there is almost always a short time of inprovement.
Simple priority lists don't really work in these cases though.
You can say that improving the locals lives is a priority, but imagine with me a situation where a government is asking when the best time to invade a country would be. What if potential support isn't there in the numbers to sustain and improvement yet, but is growing and in 30 years time we would be able to better implement the changes we want?
Do we wait 30 years? Nah, because then the people making the decision now aren't going to benefit and their other plans and priorities get put on hold. So despite the fact that the whole 'betterment of the locals' thing won't work out any more, we're still going to invade, because no-one wants to put their plans on hold.
In this way, you can say you want the betterment of the locals, and you can act that way also, and maybe you genuinely do, but because other things (in this case, enriching private interests that need money now) are more important you won't wait for the right time to do things and the betterment of the locals becomes a kind of extra optional objective.
Was there ever any indication that the Afghan population and local political scene were in a state that America could positively effect in the long term?
I'm not sure anyone making decisions in the US even looked tbh.
|
|
|
On August 17 2021 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Extremely pleased with Biden’s speech
The only thing that matters is how many people he fires. It should be in the hundreds at least. We are talking about institutional rot.
|
On August 17 2021 10:18 cLutZ wrote:The only thing that matters is how many people he fires. It should be in the hundreds at least. We are talking about institutional rot.
The entire team that concluded Afg would fight to the death in defense of American values needs to be fired. 100%.
|
I've disagreed on Biden's stance on many issues ever since he took office. But on this, he has my full support. Thank you for bringing the troops home.
I really hope Biden doesn't cave with the media as well as both Democrats and Republicans shitting on him from both sides of the aisle.
|
On August 17 2021 10:31 riotjune wrote:
I've disagreed on Biden's stance on many issues ever since he took office. But on this, he has my full support. Thank you for bringing the troops home.
I really hope Biden doesn't cave with the media as well as both Democrats and Republicans shitting on him from both sides of the aisle.
I think this is a time where we benefit enormously from having a super old president. He did the extremely brave thing to do, political future be damned. He's already done enough to retire on. I think he doesn't mind being shit on by a bunch of...people.
|
Seems like the conclusion here is that Afghan people are just terrible human beings who are happy with hardcore Islamism and oppressing women, but I don't think it's that straightforward. The Soviet-backed moderates were happy enough to fight and die against Mujaheddin even after USSR had left, after all. Of course there are plenty of hardcore Islamists who are happy to see the Taliban return, but the main issue is that the US-backed government just didn't have any real sympathizers or inspired any loyalty at all.
|
On August 17 2021 12:36 Salazarz wrote:
Seems like the conclusion here is that Afghan people are just terrible human beings who are happy with hardcore Islamism and oppressing women, but I don't think it's that straightforward. The Soviet-backed moderates were happy enough to fight and die against Mujaheddin even after USSR had left, after all. Of course there are plenty of hardcore Islamists who are happy to see the Taliban return, but the main issue is that the US-backed government just didn't have any real sympathizers or inspired any loyalty at all.
Not from me, at least. I think the Afghan's are mostly pragmatic. They are painted as "terrible" because they don't conform to the typical western neoliberal/neocon worldview which makes up "the blob" (see the link I posted above). The blob has a captured set of journalists at the big 3 (WSJ, NYT, WaPO) that serve as stenographers for them in return for access. The real villains are the blob who lied for 20 years, and got promotions, and still somehow appear to be avoiding any repercussions. Its like when Brennan went on TV and said Trump would regret making an enemy of the intelligence agencies, just with Biden. The intelligence agencies are literally the enemies of the American people. The Afghans are collateral damage, so long as they can hurt us, normal Americans.
Biden is clearly injured by this, via the blob, because he went with the pullout (which Americans have wanted for over a decade, and the blob does not). They literally lied to Trump dozens of times (and since he left office have admitted to it) about the pullout. It obviously could have been conducted in a much better manner, but through either malice or incompetence (does it matter for firing decisions? I think not) they failed to do things in the order any NCO would have advised them to do things. Such is endemic to the blob, which promotes based on fashion (fetish is my preferred word because it more accurately conveys the creepiness, even if it seems pejorative) instead of competence.
|
On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:On August 15 2021 21:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 17:49 Purressure wrote:The use of flamethrowers for example, when you know that in a specific cave there are 20 fighters hiding and waiting, why should we not use them? Why use flamethrowers when a bomb to collapse the cave is better and safer? You think that you can just saunter up to a cave and flamethrower it or something? You don't know that 20 fighters are hiding and waiting in a specific cave, that's the point, real life isn't a hollywood movie. Why would they be in a cave instead of out in the open with the rest of the population? USA has already proven to happily bomb with drones (because drones are cheap and have high availability) with 90% civilian casualties. It's a large mountainous region, and the collobarist government set up under the American invaders are corrupt and refuse to compromise with local authorities. Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine. One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows. Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment. Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse.
All I read in that first paragraph was blabla blabla blabla but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been.
And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did.
With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors.
If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly.
Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed
|
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns.
|
On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:On August 15 2021 21:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 17:49 Purressure wrote:The use of flamethrowers for example, when you know that in a specific cave there are 20 fighters hiding and waiting, why should we not use them? Why use flamethrowers when a bomb to collapse the cave is better and safer? You think that you can just saunter up to a cave and flamethrower it or something? You don't know that 20 fighters are hiding and waiting in a specific cave, that's the point, real life isn't a hollywood movie. Why would they be in a cave instead of out in the open with the rest of the population? USA has already proven to happily bomb with drones (because drones are cheap and have high availability) with 90% civilian casualties. It's a large mountainous region, and the collobarist government set up under the American invaders are corrupt and refuse to compromise with local authorities. Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine. One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows. Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment. Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was blabla blabla blabla but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed
So, maybe in an effort to raise the level of the conversation here. Why would using flamethrowers specifically make it less likely to die for the attacking soldiers as compared to what I would understand to be the standard military equipment available to them, i.e. grenades, assault rifles, tear gas, etc.?
|
On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:On August 15 2021 21:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 17:49 Purressure wrote:The use of flamethrowers for example, when you know that in a specific cave there are 20 fighters hiding and waiting, why should we not use them? Why use flamethrowers when a bomb to collapse the cave is better and safer? You think that you can just saunter up to a cave and flamethrower it or something? You don't know that 20 fighters are hiding and waiting in a specific cave, that's the point, real life isn't a hollywood movie. Why would they be in a cave instead of out in the open with the rest of the population? USA has already proven to happily bomb with drones (because drones are cheap and have high availability) with 90% civilian casualties. It's a large mountainous region, and the collobarist government set up under the American invaders are corrupt and refuse to compromise with local authorities. Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine. One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows. Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment. Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was blabla blabla blabla but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed
"Blabla blabla blabla", you are being very erudite aren't you sonny? If you can't be bothered to read, then isn't that an admission that your premise is false? Just roll with it that you've been caught out that you know nothing of the battlefield environment of Afghanistan because you thought that 20 fighters hiding in a cave is a thing. And that somehow flamethrowers are the appropriate response to such a fantasy when the US Army have to reintroduce small arms and tactics (designated marksman and their rifles) to deal with the ranges they actually engage the Taliban on.
The politics that caused more American casualties than there should had been was the invasion of Afghanistan. The 20 years of occupation when the Taliban gave all indication they were open to negotiation and power sharing with the American backed government. If you don't want American casualties, then the political solution is to not invade countries and occupy them. Which by the way since USA seemingly is happy to cause massive civilian casualties your notion that politics is preventing effective tactics at killing doesn't bear scrutiny. Your fantasy politics of the prohibition of flamethrowers (which doesn't exist btw) on fantasy targets doesn't cause American casualties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
