-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Mainstream Media is saying the War is over.
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
It could have been won.
U.S. Senator Zell Miller told us how to win it from the floor of the U.S. Senate. "Nuke the Hell out of them."
I believe people may have been permanently banned from the BB for lesser statements against a sitting President. Isn't there a rule against disparaging a sitting President whom God has placed in office? Reynolds, you might consider toning down your rhetoric against a US President. Disagree with policy and decision making, but what you have stated seems to go over the line. The moderators may wish to remove your post.
A little semantic point, we haven't had a War since WW2. Everything else has been "foreign excursions" by the Executive Branch.
That said, I would say the excursion into Afghanistan was a partial failure. We got Bin Laden, but lost the country. The people of that region have been fighting off invaders of their territory since Alexander the Great, so I never really expected us to hold it. You gotta admire the fighting spirit of the Taliban...
There's a few regions in the world that no invading force can fully conquer:
-Russia because of the geography and climate
-China because of the population and geography
-Afghanistan because of the culture and geography
-Appalachia because of the culture and geography
-Australia because of the geography and climate
If you got hardy folk and rough terrain, you can't win against that combo. You gotta either remove the terrain, or remove/dilute the population to make it winnable and we didn't do that in Afghanistan. When you don't do that the occupying country just spends money until they leave and things revert back to normal.
That said, I would say the excursion into Afghanistan was a partial failure. We got Bin Laden, but lost the country. The people of that region have been fighting off invaders of their territory since Alexander the Great, so I never really expected us to hold it. You gotta admire the fighting spirit of the Taliban...
There's a few regions in the world that no invading force can fully conquer:
-Russia because of the geography and climate
-China because of the population and geography
-Afghanistan because of the culture and geography
-Appalachia because of the culture and geography
-Australia because of the geography and climate
If you got hardy folk and rough terrain, you can't win against that combo. You gotta either remove the terrain, or remove/dilute the population to make it winnable and we didn't do that in Afghanistan. When you don't do that the occupying country just spends money until they leave and things revert back to normal.
Everything I said was factually accurate.
Reynods wrote:
"He is a filthy traitor."
There is no doubt that anyone saying that about President Trump would be, minimally, warned and banned for a period of time, but likely perma banned.
Reynolds, you overstepped in your comment about the God placed President of the United States.
A good start would be you apologizing for going over the line and denigrating a sitting President of the United States.
"He is a filthy traitor."
There is no doubt that anyone saying that about President Trump would be, minimally, warned and banned for a period of time, but likely perma banned.
Reynolds, you overstepped in your comment about the God placed President of the United States.
A good start would be you apologizing for going over the line and denigrating a sitting President of the United States.
Hannahande
Member
What do you think will be the next step of the government after leaving Afghanistan? Do you think there's possibility we can help the Afghans or we will just move on and leave it everything in the past.
Maybe we will follow the lead - that we had in Vietnam
We were never at war with Afghanistan. It was a war in Afghanistan (against terrorism) In 2001 the core strength of the Takiban was 45,000 people. The war cost us about 2 trillion dollars, about 2,500 US servicemen, and about 240,000 Afgan lives.
It was a poorly defined war without a clear objective and no exit strategy.
And by a government you have said you do not trust.
I was against the war then. I preferred the Zell Miller option.
The "Agfan" govt (as Joe calls them) harbored the terrorists. They were responsible.
Nukes should have flown. This is one of the rare instances where we could have not only gotten Russia's permission to nuke someone, they would have helped us do it.
I disagree. Without a military specific target using nuclear weapons would have been a war crime (especially since Afghanistan was an ally).
Don't forget that the US trained and funded Osama bin Laden to fight against the Soviet army. By your logic we are just as guilty (other nations who suffered terrorist attacks would be justified in nuking us).
Not the logical conclusion of argument at all.
War crimes are only for the losers.
If we got Russia to pop off a few nukes of their own, who gonna try to put the two superpowers on trial.
Let me reword - it would be an anti-Christian move to nuke innocent people.
They are not innocent. If you harbor, supply, feed, or in any way give aid or comfort to the enemy; you are the enemy.
How many "innocent" people got killed the way we fought the war?
Sherman's doctrine of total warfare, though in the short term seems brutle, in the long term is more humane than the alternative.
We're you guilty of training and funding Bin Laden?
When he was our ally. He turned traitor. Even more reason to nuke them.
He was never an ally. We funded him for our purposes (against the Soviet army).
What you ate suggesting is that it's appropriate to murder people because they have an unstable government.