The New Afghanistan

[SGO]

The result of Biden following through on Trump's policy.

'You can see the changes': Afghan women go from wearing suits to wearing burqas 1 month since the fall of Kabul

'You can see the changes': Afghan women go from wearing suits to wearing burqas 1 month since the fall of Kabul

 

[Reynolds]

The result of Biden following through on Trump's policy.

'You can see the changes': Afghan women go from wearing suits to wearing burqas 1 month since the fall of Kabul

'You can see the changes': Afghan women go from wearing suits to wearing burqas 1 month since the fall of Kabul

Joe does not care. He intends to screw the USA up so bad that everybody forgets about Afghanistan.

 

[JonC]

It would have happened regardless of which administration pulled out. The issue is not Afghanistan. The problem is we had no legitimate goals (we were at war with "terror" - no concrete end point).

The issue, however, is President Biden acted without any feasible plan at all.

 

[Reynolds]

It would have happened regardless of which administration pulled out. The issue is not Afghanistan. The problem is we had no legitimate goals (we were at war with "terror" - no concrete end point).

The issue, however, is President Biden acted without any feasible plan at all.

We should have nuked them. Would have been a lot cheaper. There would have been no need for an Iraq war after that. Saddam would have been our best friend.

 

[JonC]

We should have nuked them. Would have been a lot cheaper. There would have been no need for an Iraq war after that. Saddam would have been our best friend.

We couldn't. To nuke'em there has to be an 'em to nuke.

We were at war in Afghanistan, not with Afghanistan. We typically do not choose to nuke our allies to kill millions of innocent civilians to pursue terrorists in that country.

That'd be like nuking Georgia to get rid of innercity gangs.

 

[Reynolds]

We couldn't. To nuke'em there has to be an 'em to nuke.

We were at war in Afghanistan, not with Afghanistan. We typically do not choose to nuke our allies to kill millions of innocent civilians to pursue terrorists in that country.

That'd be like nuking Georgia to get rid of innercity gangs.

Afghanistan was not an ally. They were a bunch of terrorists who we used to fight a common enemy.
They used us and we used them. Not a real ally.

Saddam Hussein was our ally. That's a different story.

 

[Wingman68]

 

[JonC]

Afghanistan was not an ally. They were a bunch of terrorists who we used to fight a common enemy.
They used us and we used them. Not a real ally.

Saddam Hussein was our ally. That's a different story.

No. Afghanistan was an ally at least from 2004 to 2021. They lost over 25x the number of soldiers we lost fighting the same terrorists.

Were we to start murdering innocent people by the millions to take out insurgent groups then we would become the terrorists.

 

[JonC]

View attachment 5246

Plus 2,448 American service members, 3,846 U.S. contractors, about 66,000 Afghan national military and police (our allies), 1,144 other allied service members, 47,245 Afghan civilians, 444 aid workers, and 72 journalists.

That's 121,199 "friendly" lives lost.

Taliban and other opposition fighters lost 51,191.

But....that's politics. A lot lost - nothing gained.

 

[Reynolds]

No. Afghanistan was an ally at least from 2004 to 2021. They lost over 25x the number of soldiers we lost fighting the same terrorists.

Were we to start murdering innocent people by the millions to take out insurgent groups then we would become the terrorists.

You give terrorists safe haven, you are a terrorist.

 

[JonC]

You give terrorists safe haven, you are a terrorist.

I understand why people debate killing guilty people. I do not understand why we debate killing innocent people.

More Afghans died helping us than died fighting us.

I do not understand the desire to kill people simply because of their nationality.

 

[Reynolds]

I understand why people debate killing guilty people. I do not understand why we debate killing innocent people.

More Afghans died helping us than died fighting us.

I do not understand the desire to kill people simply because of their nationality.

Because that is the only way you win wars.
We have not won a single war since we abandoned Sherman's doctrine off total warfare.
(Iraq could be debated, but history will show we lost that one too.)
If you are not willing to fight a total war, then don't fight the war at all. The civilians are the enemy. The army is merely an extension of the will of the civilians. You don't win a war until you break the will of the civilians to field an army.
Most the Afghans were not helping us. They were getting paid good money to run from the Taliban. Most were at best double agents. That's why the Afghan Army fell in a week.

 

[JonC]

Because that is the only way you win wars.
We have not won a single war since we abandoned Sherman's doctrine off total warfare.
(Iraq could be debated, but history will show we lost that one too.)
If you are not willing to fight a total war, then don't fight the war at all. The civilians are the enemy. The army is merely an extension of the will of the civilians. You don't win a war until you break the will of the civilians to field an army.
Most the Afghans were not helping us. They were getting paid good money to run from the Taliban. Most were at best double agents. That's why the Afghan Army fell in a week.

The problem is still the fact that we were not at war with Afghanistan. You do not win a war by attacking countries with which you are not at war.

More than that, what good is winning a war at the cost of your soul (figuratively)? It would have been the death of the US.

I am not sure why you believe most Afghans were against us. Sure, their ideology is most likely opposed to the US government...but look around this board - many Americans do not trust their own government.

But ideology is not a reason to murder people.

 

[Reynolds]

The problem is still the fact that we were not at war with Afghanistan. You do not win a war by attacking countries with which you are not at war.

More than that, what good is winning a war at the cost of your soul (figuratively)? It would have been the death of the US.

I am not sure why you believe most Afghans were against us. Sure, their ideology is most likely opposed to the US government...but look around this board - many Americans do not trust their own government.

But ideology is not a reason to murder people.

War is not murder.
By your logic, we were not at war with the people of Japan. We were at war with the emperor.

 

[JonC]

War is not murder.
By your logic, we were not at war with the people of Japan. We were at war with the emperor.

We were not at war with Afghanistan or the government of Afghanistan. It would be murder.

Why do you believe that all Afghans should be killed?

 

[Reynolds]

We were not at war with Afghanistan or the government of Afghanistan. It would be murder.

Why do you believe that all Afghans should be killed?

Only the ones who either actively or passively harbor Taliban in their region.
If the people of Afghanistan wanted rid of Taliban, they had plenty of time to do so.
There are areas who have removed Taliban from their areas. Most areas have not.

 

[JonC]

Only the ones who either actively or passively harbor Taliban in their region.
If the people of Afghanistan wanted rid of Taliban, they had plenty of time to do so.
There are areas who have removed Taliban from their areas. Most areas have not.

The Taliban started in 1994. Democrats have been here since 1828. Your logic fails .

 

[Reynolds]

The Taliban started in 1994. Democrats have been here since 1828. Your logic fails .

The Taliban started using that name in about 94. They been around a looking time.
We have laws here.

 

[JonC]

The Taliban started using that name in about 94. They been around a looking time.
We have laws here.

No. The Taliban is a Deobandi Islamic religious/political movement that was started in 1994 by religious students in Pakistan.

Afghans also have laws, but unfortunately it is not a stable area and the people become subject to whatever sect is in power.

 

[Reynolds]

No. The Taliban is a Deobandi Islamic religious/political movement that was started in 1994 by religious students in Pakistan.

Afghans also have laws, but unfortunately it is not a stable area and the people become subject to whatever sect is in power.

The Taliban is simply another faction in the civil war among terrorists wanting to control Afghanistan. That is what Afghanistan has been since Soviet pull out, civil war among terrorists.