I wish someone would admit the US has lost the longest war in American history already.
I'm not sure you can frame it as a straight win/loss question
especially when even though the war is still going on, many more enemy combatants have died than our own troops
HOW'D THAT WORK OUT IN VIETNAM?
this is not Vietnam
if it were, Osama bin Laden would still be alive, for one
Osama Bin Laden didn't lead the several subgroups that make up the Taliban of Afghanistan. Y'know, the people we're actually fighting in Afghanistan.
I really want to know why you think a war's success can be measured in the amount of enemy combatant deaths .
I think that it is a thing you take into account, because one of the main goals of going into a war is killing more enemy troops than you lose. I don't think it's the only measurement at all.
What I said was that I don't think we're looking at a strict win/loss situation here. What were the main goals in this conflict? I think that they were something like, kill Osama bin Laden, defeat al Qaeda, and leave Afghanistan a better country than it was under the Taliban. One of those was completely accomplished, and the other two are partially accomplished. This isn't a traditional war for territory, traditional measurements of victory and defeat are inadequate.
Except Afghanistan is now a much much much worse country than it was under the Taliban under probably every metric other than the can women do a thing metric
Is it?
I mean that country was in the middle of a civil war when the invasion happened.
I wish someone would admit the US has lost the longest war in American history already.
I'm not sure you can frame it as a straight win/loss question
especially when even though the war is still going on, many more enemy combatants have died than our own troops
HOW'D THAT WORK OUT IN VIETNAM?
this is not Vietnam
if it were, Osama bin Laden would still be alive, for one
Osama Bin Laden didn't lead the several subgroups that make up the Taliban of Afghanistan. Y'know, the people we're actually fighting in Afghanistan.
I really want to know why you think a war's success can be measured in the amount of enemy combatant deaths .
I think that it is a thing you take into account, because one of the main goals of going into a war is killing more enemy troops than you lose. I don't think it's the only measurement at all.
What I said was that I don't think we're looking at a strict win/loss situation here. What were the main goals in this conflict? I think that they were something like, kill Osama bin Laden, defeat al Qaeda, and leave Afghanistan a better country than it was under the Taliban. One of those was completely accomplished, and the other two are partially accomplished. This isn't a traditional war for territory, traditional measurements of victory and defeat are inadequate.
Except Afghanistan is now a much much much worse country than it was under the Taliban under probably every metric other than the can women do a thing metric
Is it?
I mean that country was in the middle of a civil war when the invasion happened.
I wish someone would admit the US has lost the longest war in American history already.
I'm not sure you can frame it as a straight win/loss question
especially when even though the war is still going on, many more enemy combatants have died than our own troops
HOW'D THAT WORK OUT IN VIETNAM?
this is not Vietnam
if it were, Osama bin Laden would still be alive, for one
Osama Bin Laden didn't lead the several subgroups that make up the Taliban of Afghanistan. Y'know, the people we're actually fighting in Afghanistan.
I really want to know why you think a war's success can be measured in the amount of enemy combatant deaths .
I think that it is a thing you take into account, because one of the main goals of going into a war is killing more enemy troops than you lose. I don't think it's the only measurement at all.
What I said was that I don't think we're looking at a strict win/loss situation here. What were the main goals in this conflict? I think that they were something like, kill Osama bin Laden, defeat al Qaeda, and leave Afghanistan a better country than it was under the Taliban. One of those was completely accomplished, and the other two are partially accomplished. This isn't a traditional war for territory, traditional measurements of victory and defeat are inadequate.
Except Afghanistan is now a much much much worse country than it was under the Taliban under probably every metric other than the can women do a thing metric
Is it?
I mean that country was in the middle of a civil war when the invasion happened.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Paul Ryan
Atlas Shrugged II
Will it influence the election?
You decide
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I wish someone would admit the US has lost the longest war in American history already.
I'm not sure you can frame it as a straight win/loss question
especially when even though the war is still going on, many more enemy combatants have died than our own troops
HOW'D THAT WORK OUT IN VIETNAM?
this is not Vietnam
if it were, Osama bin Laden would still be alive, for one
Osama Bin Laden didn't lead the several subgroups that make up the Taliban of Afghanistan. Y'know, the people we're actually fighting in Afghanistan.
I really want to know why you think a war's success can be measured in the amount of enemy combatant deaths .
I think that it is a thing you take into account, because one of the main goals of going into a war is killing more enemy troops than you lose. I don't think it's the only measurement at all.
What I said was that I don't think we're looking at a strict win/loss situation here. What were the main goals in this conflict? I think that they were something like, kill Osama bin Laden, defeat al Qaeda, and leave Afghanistan a better country than it was under the Taliban. One of those was completely accomplished, and the other two are partially accomplished. This isn't a traditional war for territory, traditional measurements of victory and defeat are inadequate.
A higher kill count in a war against an insurgency means fuck all. cf. Vietnam The US went in with the goal of capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden and also kicking the Taliban out of power. The US completed the first goal as part of its war in Pakistan. Defeating an organization as nebulous as Al Qaeda is extremely difficult to measure because of the continued naming of various insurgent groups in other regions as affiliated or part of Al Qaeda in _______. Especially when you consider our methods for eliminating "members of Al Qaeda" involve drone strikes that involve collateral damage that turns more people against the United States. Thirdly, I would call the goal of making Afghanistan a better country an abject failure. The Taliban is as strong if not slightly stronger than pre surge Afghanistan and they're basically waiting for us to go away so they can roll back in with Pakistan's backing. Our vaunted training of the Afghan Military is going to collapse as soon as we step out of the country. We lost. Pakistan and the Taliban won. Afghanistan is going to continue to be a fucked up humanitarian disaster. Pakistan is shit.
In what way is the Taliban just as strong or possibly stronger than they were before the invasion? They've lost most of their leadership and a large amount of their people. They've been able to carry on small scale guerilla warfare, but that's a tactic you resort to specifically when you are weaker than your enemy. Besides that, your estimation of Pakistan's support seems a bit exaggerated. Pakistan's intelligence service aided the Taliban in the past, but with the Taliban's actions inside of Pakistan over the last five years or so, they've lost most if not all of their support in that area.
I would disagree that Pakistan is shit. Just from the reaction inside the country to the shooting of Malala Yousafzai earlier this week, and in the way they drove the Taliban out of Swat in 2009. They're certainly not receptive to the repressive culture that the Taliban advocates. Afghanistan is not a disaster either, it's just a situation we don't need to continue to be involved in. I may be wrong, but I really doubt that the Taliban is going to take control of Afghanistan again. They're going to be a thorn in the side of the country for probably a long while, but they don't have the numbers or the arms to forcibly overthrow the government.
seriously though these are the words that come to mind when I watch paul ryan speak:
oily
snake
weasel
sniveling
two-faced
mercurial
of course he'd end up romney's vice presidential pick, they are both people who have no business attempting to be charismatic yet somehow due to the insane political discourse of america are being considered like they are in any way earnest or honest about anything
When the vice president began nibbling on her ears and fondling her breasts, Mrs. Ryan stuck her tongue straight out of her mouth and Biden just started licking all around it. She was literally shaking
He's a witch, flaring his nimbus to "win" the debate.
0
Options
Skylarko7 Vile Rat o7o7 Photon Torpedo o7Registered Userregular
For context, I was born and grew up under a communist dictatorship, and every time I see North American call a centrist politician a Communist/Socialist, or complain how Canada/the US is becoming a police state, I want to punch them in their fucking ignorant mouths.
For context, I was born and grew up under a communist dictatorship, and every time I see North American call a centrist politician a Communist/Socialist, or complain how Canada/the US is becoming a police state, I want to punch them in their fucking ignorant mouths.
agree with the first half
the second half...well, somewhat agree
a lot of deeply unsettling things have been happening over the past few decades, stuff that doesn't typically make it into the press
stuff like the FBI working with local police departments to entrap activists
Posts
He's doing a renegade playthtough is all.
Well, good thing I don't like sleeping.
i actually do love the magazine that the WWN has morphed into
back when i worked at CVS i would read it all the time and ed anger is my favorite parody of conservatives
go to a "news" outlet you know has an agenda, and see how much they talk about the other guy
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
we're not the mainstream media
nope
Also the headline Biden Shares 20-Minute Post-Debate Kiss With Janna Ryan
Glorious then, glorious now.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
it wasn't really that dispirate
I mean that country was in the middle of a civil war when the invasion happened.
Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
then it was just a civil war and an invasion
You really feel Ryan won that debate?
Really?
damn your logic.
Will it influence the election?
You decide
Also a RSVP card from my mom for my wedding.
Connected?
You be the judge!
who are you
In what way is the Taliban just as strong or possibly stronger than they were before the invasion? They've lost most of their leadership and a large amount of their people. They've been able to carry on small scale guerilla warfare, but that's a tactic you resort to specifically when you are weaker than your enemy. Besides that, your estimation of Pakistan's support seems a bit exaggerated. Pakistan's intelligence service aided the Taliban in the past, but with the Taliban's actions inside of Pakistan over the last five years or so, they've lost most if not all of their support in that area.
I would disagree that Pakistan is shit. Just from the reaction inside the country to the shooting of Malala Yousafzai earlier this week, and in the way they drove the Taliban out of Swat in 2009. They're certainly not receptive to the repressive culture that the Taliban advocates. Afghanistan is not a disaster either, it's just a situation we don't need to continue to be involved in. I may be wrong, but I really doubt that the Taliban is going to take control of Afghanistan again. They're going to be a thorn in the side of the country for probably a long while, but they don't have the numbers or the arms to forcibly overthrow the government.
This is all the proof I need that God exists.
Steam
he is an agent of chaos
broken clock, twice a day
oily
snake
weasel
sniveling
two-faced
mercurial
of course he'd end up romney's vice presidential pick, they are both people who have no business attempting to be charismatic yet somehow due to the insane political discourse of america are being considered like they are in any way earnest or honest about anything
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
if you want to look like a greasy weasel
if his picks won a presidency, he just wouldn't know what to do with it!
is it just me or can you see the hatred radiating off of Ryan
am I just looking for something that isn't there
and biden is sizing up his next meal
(it's a little scrawny)
but then i'm also drunk
Bit of a stretch, but I like it.
Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
agree with the first half
the second half...well, somewhat agree
a lot of deeply unsettling things have been happening over the past few decades, stuff that doesn't typically make it into the press
stuff like the FBI working with local police departments to entrap activists