171–180 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> freedom and democracy Are you aware that one of the most cliché jokes told outside of the U.S. is some variation of "when an American says democracy, everyone ducks for cover"?
Not about that one but I heard one that I found relevant: How can the US promote Democracy abroad if it can’t even protect it at Home?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biden would disagree: > Q Mr. President, some Vietnamese veterans see echoes of their experience in this withdrawal in Afghanistan. Do you see any parallels between this withdrawal and what happened in Vietnam, with some people feeling — > THE PRESIDENT: None whatsoever. Zero. What you had is — you had entire brigades breaking through the gates of our embassy — six, if I’m not mistaken. > The Taliban is not the south…
> There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable. That did not age very well. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/15/1027806863/the-taliban-seize-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s more a failure of the people who sent them there than the forces themselves. This is a management issue. For all of the failings of the current US president, getting the hell out of an endless, unnecessary war is a good thing.
I disagree that getting out is a good thing. It means a terrorist organization will control a nation and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. It means rivals like China expand their influence and force projection at our expense, since they plan to reco…
What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed? I've mostly only seen them fight back against foreign invaders.
> and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!).
First they offered to look at evidence and consider extradition, then they offered extradition, both of which the U.S. refused.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
> It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically.
Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world?
It's interesting to note that DRA (the pro-Soviet Afghanistan government) has fought for 3 whole years after the Soviets have left Afghanistan. And it was with the almost complete lack of military support from the USSR (you know, the Union collapse and all) and with Taliban being actively funded by the US and Pakistan. Meanwhile, the current government probably will fall even before the US will finish its humiliating…
The humiliating part is that the U.S. was there at all, not that the U.S. finally pulled out of a place where troops should never have been sent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think that’s a valid question. What would they do with money? Buy more weapons, I guess? Invest in training. Hire more recruits.
Both you and the parent poster are missing the forest through the trees. The failure is not in money, training, or conscription. The failure is in not giving the army any reason to fight. If you don't give a rat's ass about your cause, and there's a serious possibility of defeat, why would you keep fighting? The problem is that in twenty years, the coalition-supported government failed to make enough of its constitue…
> If you don't give a rat's ass about your cause, and there's a serious possibility of defeat, why would you keep fighting?
Keep fighting? My understanding is that there was no serious effort to fight from the army's side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US played a pivotal role in saving our asses over in Europe, and we are eternally grateful, but ever since, the US has been bad at war. It's not the firepower, it's not the soldiers, and it's not the organization. These are top notch. It's the **ing politicians dragging young men and women into wars not worth fighting.
This is a very ironic comment considering that the soviets, not the US liberated Europe from Germany. They fought the hardest battles, lost the most soldiers, fought for the longer time and were first in Berlin. The public just believes otherwise because of 70 years of US propaganda [1]. The only thing US soldiers left us europeans with are a massive influx of refugees of which we have to take care of and for which w…
You're responding to another human, such that its a locality sensitive sentiment. To a French, Belgian or Dutch national the US is the savior of that war - the Soviets being uninvolved in their liberation.
As an aside, I wonder if there exist an Slavic-language HN where Eastern Europeans argue that American steel was the true winner in the war and the Soviets don't deserve glory...
So will the Taliban stop the opium production again?
On the contrary. Taliban increased poppy fields by 50 percent in 2020 and they are also pushing meth through their channels. Taliban budget estimated at 2 bilion dollars is supported chiefly by opium trade... https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/19/taliban-expanding-drug-...
“We are awaiting a peaceful transfer of power,” Taliban spokesman Suhail Saheen told the BBC. When did terrorist groups get spokespeople, geez.
What a failure of the US armed forces here. 20 damn years staying in the country with the only 2 goal - to help Afghans build an army and help defend themselves and to eradicate the Taliban. They failed miserably in both. Trillions spent and many lost lives. Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Of course, the cycle keeps repeating itself and we keep growing the military.