More troops headed to Afghanistan after 17 years

Phr3121

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
9,972
Reaction score
2
Story: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ing-to-afghanistan/ar-BBLR0g2?ocid=spartandhp

BBLQSON.img


"Prime Minister Theresa May has announced that 440 more British military personnel will join the NATO mission in Afghanistan."

"U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan is now classified information, but estimates put the number at close to 15,000."

"Pentagon strips Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria troop numbers from the web."

Link: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...raq-afghanistan-syria-troop-numbers-from-web/

Looks like somebody was lying in 2013...
 
An occupying army needs to stay there and keep shit under control. Afghanistanis can't or won't, and we've all seen what happens when we leave that shithole to itself.
 
I mean....the onus should be on the United States to manage the Taliban, since it was the United States, along with its allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (then colloquially known as New Saudi Arabia, or Spicy Saudi Arabia), that created the Taliban to counter Soviet occupation.
 
I mean....the onus should be on the United States to manage the Taliban, since it was the United States, along with its allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (then colloquially known as New Saudi Arabia, or Spicy Saudi Arabia), that created the Taliban to counter Soviet occupation.
The Taliban would exist there regardless. It's a "local warlord has the power to run it and will use it" kind of place. Poverty, tribalism, and religious authority are what keeps that place together, if you could call it that.
 
An occupying army needs to stay there and keep shit under control. Afghanistanis can't or won't, and we've all seen what happens when we leave that shithole to itself.

You mean 'those shitholes'. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Future shitholes: Pakistan, Somalia, Iran, Myanmar, and North Korea. An occupying Army? Like colonial Britain? Yeah, the British did keep their colonies under control. It all went to shit when they left. Advisors? That is a great term. Made famous in Vietnam. Let's just call it for what it is. NATO (or the United States) is taking over your country because you guys can't do shit right and are now becoming a threat to yourselves and the rest of the world. More U.S. taxpayer dollars and American lives, again...
 
It was the United States...that created the Taliban to counter Soviet occupation.

Yeah, those nasty Soviets were our allies in WWII. The Germans were our enemy and they are now our ally.
 
I thought this thread was about Afghanistan.

Well, the 'cancer' has spread beyond Afghanistan. That 'shithole' tends to get filled up by other countries also. The U.S., I mean NATO, has to now keep cleaning those 'holes'.
 
Yeah, those nasty Soviets were our allies in WWII. The Germans were our enemy and they are now our ally.

I mean....Germany was far from our enemy up until our entry into the war, and the Soviets were far from ever our friend. The US powers that be quite liked the fascists up until the point that they couldn't: they kept Germany open for business, crushed labor interests, and slaughtered those pesky Marxists. If not for military allegiances, the US would have much preferred the Nazis to the Soviets until probably the end of time.
 
This is a never ending war.
Unless we want the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, we'll have to keep giving the government aid (billions yearly) and policing the country till the end of time, forever. The other alternative is getting an agreement with them which's impossible. Their aim is to impose their anti-western, pro-islamic regime on the country, which's one of the reasons we're there in the first place.
So it's either admit defeat, leave and see the country become what was pre-invasion,or stay their forever bleeding money and lives.
 
But trumpets in here told us he was winning bigly!
 
An occupying army needs to stay there and keep shit under control. Afghanistanis can't or won't, and we've all seen what happens when we leave that shithole to itself.
How long should we occupy? If we haven't accomplished anything in 17 years why do you think staying longer will help? We are already in secret negotiations with the Taliban,
 
How long should we occupy? If we haven't accomplished anything in 17 years why do you think staying longer will help? We are already in secret negotiations with the Taliban,
Anything?
Again, left to itself, the place becomes a danger to the world.
 
Anything?
Again, left to itself, the place becomes a danger to the world.
As long as we are there they will be fighting us, how long do we stay? 100 years? forever?. Make it the 51st state? Not to mention it would take a million man army to successfully occupy.
 
Anything?
Again, left to itself, the place becomes a danger to the world.

What danger? Not a single hijacker was from Afghanistan. The three men charged with masterminding 9/11 were from SA, Pakistan and Egypt.

If they're a danger it's because you guys decided to bomb the fuck out of them for little to no reason.
 
I mean....the onus should be on the United States to manage the Taliban, since it was the United States, along with its allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (then colloquially known as New Saudi Arabia, or Spicy Saudi Arabia), that created the Taliban to counter Soviet occupation.

Well, yeah. If the world was perfectly fair and the American military was capable of 'managing' anything in the ME without making it worse.
Neither point being the case, why should America not cut its losses?

Again, left to itself, the place becomes a danger to the world.

In what way?
 
Back
Top