Taliban Taking Over Afghanistan - Does anyone care?

Do you care?

  • No

    Votes: 41 23.6%

  • Hell No

    Votes: 48 27.6%

  • Yes, we should invade and send in Troops

    Votes: 25 14.4%

  • I like Pie

    Votes: 60 34.5%
  • Total voters
    174
#2,453
#2,453
Rasputin_Vol said:
Korea War: Deadlock
Bay of Pigs: Fiasco
Vietnam War: Fiasco/loss
Operation Eagle Claw (Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt): Fiasco
Iraq: 2 wars over the last 30 years, minimal gains
Afghanistan: Fiasco/loss
Syria: Fiasco/loss
Taiwan: ???
Ukraine:???


Grenada: Win
Panama/Noriega: Win
Click to expand...
The last time the U.S. was victorious in a significant conflict?

South Pacific Theater, WWII
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, davethevol, StarRaider and 3 others
#2,454
#2,454
NorthDallas40 said:
None had anything to do with combat effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Our record says we generally do better fighting against countries that fight according to conventional rules, and we aren't so good against little guys running around in a disorganized (to us) manner and creeping up on us in jungles and stuff. That thing again about anticipating the enemy based on what we would do and following the game rules. Grenada was such a mismatch it shouldn't even count, and the Panamanians probably hated Noriega even more than we did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#2,456
#2,456
AM64 said:
Our record says we generally do better fighting against countries that fight according to conventional rules, and we aren't so good against little guys running around in a disorganized (to us) manner and creeping up on us in jungles and stuff. That thing again about anticipating the enemy based on what we would do and following the game rules. Grenada was such a mismatch it shouldn't even count, and the Panamanians probably hated Noriega even more than we did.
Click to expand...
We just need to get out of the boots on the ground plan. Bomb the **** out of them until they are useless or the citizenry overthrow the regimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Vol737, W.TN.Orange Blood and 4 others
#2,458
#2,458
AM64 said:
Our record says we generally do better fighting against countries that fight according to conventional rules, and we aren't so good against little guys running around in a disorganized (to us) manner and creeping up on us in jungles and stuff. That thing again about anticipating the enemy based on what we would do and following the game rules. Grenada was such a mismatch it shouldn't even count, and the Panamanians probably hated Noriega even more than we did.
Click to expand...
Then I'll take away Granada and Panama and the USA war machine would have zero accomplishments since WWII...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92 and AM64
#2,459
#2,459
Rasputin_Vol said:
The same argument, not a shift. Military failures are costly and waste lives and resources.
Click to expand...

You don't see the western Pacific as a domino problem? Not like the last time that was theorized; but if you allow a bully to take over one country, you say it's OK to take the next and the next. The modern version of appeasement. A little bite here and a nibble there, but I suppose if we "strongly object" to their behavior in letters of disapproval meeting all the fine rules of diplomacy, of course ... What about island hopping? That's been done too - the first 83 are insignificant but now against an emboldened enemy with practice at a place closer to our home ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#2,464
#2,464
Rasputin_Vol said:
Then I'll take away Granada and Panama and the USA war machine would have zero accomplishments since WWII...
Click to expand...

Korea probably could have been a win if we hadn't decided to settle for a tie. But again, it was the tale of the body bags coming home and a proxy war fought against a mostly insignificant country. A way for Russia and China to keep us busy without "getting involved" ... too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, 05_never_again and StarRaider
#2,465
#2,465
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, Orangeburst, StarRaider and 3 others
#2,466
#2,466
volfanhill said:
We just need to get out of the boots on the ground plan. Bomb the **** out of them until they are useless or the citizenry overthrow the regimes.
Click to expand...

Except for those bombs, when the smoke clears the roaches still come crawling out. We should be pretty satisfied that all out strategic bombing is like Keynesian economics ... you never drop enough bombs for a long enough time. We only have the knockout will in sports; maybe we're too civilized against enemies that aren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#2,469
#2,469
NorthDallas40 said:
Our ******* government who leashed our military and didn’t let them do what they were trained to do.

Look at Vietnam win every damn major conflict and lose the war.
Click to expand...

Just knowing a bit of pre history, you could have predicted that outcome. We saw first hand what the French were up against, and made a token effort to adjust our style; and when the treaty declaring Laos a neutral country was signed everybody except N Viet Nam pulled their forces out. The writing was on the wall that they would use Laos and Cambodia as sanctuaries and we couldn't annihilate them at their rear bases. That's even without Johnson and McNamara playing Field Marshall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, tbh, StarRaider and 2 others
#2,475
#2,475
AM64 said:
Korea probably could have been a win if we hadn't decided to settle for a tie. But again, it was the tale of the body bags coming home and a proxy war fought against a mostly insignificant country. A way for Russia and China to keep us busy without "getting involved" ... too much.
Click to expand...

China lost an estimated 1 million soldiers in Korea, they were involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, RavinDave and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top