Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then that explains why the bad guys rule Afghanistan outside of Kabul? Yes, Sunni Man is correct, and you are woefully, inadequately, and pitifully wrong, Gunny -- pull your brain out of that helmet and start thinking clearly, man!
You talking to me, dirtbag terrorist sympathizer?
Those aren't excuses .. they're FACTS. Something you wouldn't know if they were red bricks and fell on your head. You want to debate this issue or what? I'll rip your ass, POS scum.
Not much more pisses me off than some scumbag, US-hating fuckwit, US CITIZEN, whining about how bad we are while our fukkin milk and honey is dribblin down your pencil sharpened chin.
How does telling the truth make a person unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathizer?
Gunny, you remind me of a rabid sports fan who won't admitt it when his team loses a game.
"the ref's cheated us"
"the ball wasn't out of bounds"
"the other team cheated"
"the penalty clock was wrong"
In the end; It's the final score that counts. Not how the game was played
I have heard the exact same excuses for the last 30 years about our loss in Vietnam.
"We were winning, but the politicians lost the war for us"
"We were forced to fight with one hand tied behind our back"
"We won Tet, but the liberal media turned it into a loss"
'We won every major battle"
"We were on the verge of success, but the (take your pick), bleeding hearts/media/politicians/liberals/etc., wouldn't let us win"
Now the exact same pathetic excuses are being put forth about our impending loss in Afghanistain.
I was drafted for Vietnam.
After I served my time in the Army.
I marched is a couple of "Get out of Vietnam" parades.
People like Gunny called us traitors and unpatriotic scum.
History confirms the anti-war crowd was right.
So who were the real Patriots?
I have heard the exact same excuses for the last 30 years about our loss in Vietnam.
"We were winning, but the politicians lost the war for us"
"We were forced to fight with one hand tied behind our back"
"We won Tet, but the liberal media turned it into a loss"
'We won every major battle"
"We were on the verge of success, but the (take your pick), bleeding hearts/media/politicians/liberals/etc., wouldn't let us win"
Now the exact same pathetic excuses are being put forth about our impending loss in Afghanistain.
What these statements reveal is the change in the nature of modern warfare. For years, we believed that the ultimate modern war would be fought on the Fulda Gap between massive tank armies arrayed along a continent-wide battlefield augmented by a sophisticated, multi-dimensional battle space that encompassed air power, naval power, long-range rocket systems and information dominance fought out in cyberspace. The truth of the matter is that Vietnam was the forerunner of the modern 21st century war. For a long time, the military treated Vietnam as the anomaly to modern war-fighting doctrine when it was, in fact, the blueprint of how future wars were going to be fought.
Modern war in the 21st century is not won or lost on the battlefield. It is won or lost back home by the opinions formed in the minds of the average American. It's not the tactical command post where battle strategies are formed. It's the chambers of the House and Senate where these strategies are truly developed. War is no longer a matter of killing bad guys and destroying enemy equipment. Wars are now defined by the perceptions portrayed by the news media, the internet and sound bites uttered by politicians. The Truth is no longer a factor; Perception is the only factor.
The military is still a viable tool in enforcing foreign policy; but modern leaders need to understand that today's military can only be used as a temporary solution and not a long-range solution. Send in the military; gain the immediate objectives; then pull the military out and go back to diplomacy, economic pressure, humanitarian aid and other incentives/sanctions as the long-range strategy. Otherwise, we will end up going from one quagmire to another.
Vietnam was the primer, and we collectively ignored it.
How was fighting the war in Vietnam keeping us safe here in America?
What freedoms were we protecting for US citizens by bombing N. Vietnam?
How did invading Iraq and killing Saddam protect our families and loved ones in America?
We bombed and killid several million Vietnamese to force a government and culture on them that they didn't want.How was fighting the war in Vietnam keeping us safe here in America?
What freedoms were we protecting for US citizens by bombing N. Vietnam?
How did invading Iraq and killing Saddam protect our families and loved ones in America?
We were tryign to defend the rights of human beings who lived in SouthEast Asia to determine their own destiny and not have it forced on them by force of arms.
I have heard the exact same excuses for the last 30 years about our loss in Vietnam.
"We were winning, but the politicians lost the war for us"
"We were forced to fight with one hand tied behind our back"
"We won Tet, but the liberal media turned it into a loss"
'We won every major battle"
"We were on the verge of success, but the (take your pick), bleeding hearts/media/politicians/liberals/etc., wouldn't let us win"
Now the exact same pathetic excuses are being put forth about our impending loss in Afghanistain.
What these statements reveal is the change in the nature of modern warfare. For years, we believed that the ultimate modern war would be fought on the Fulda Gap between massive tank armies arrayed along a continent-wide battlefield augmented by a sophisticated, multi-dimensional battle space that encompassed air power, naval power, long-range rocket systems and information dominance fought out in cyberspace. The truth of the matter is that Vietnam was the forerunner of the modern 21st century war. For a long time, the military treated Vietnam as the anomaly to modern war-fighting doctrine when it was, in fact, the blueprint of how future wars were going to be fought.
Modern war in the 21st century is not won or lost on the battlefield. It is won or lost back home by the opinions formed in the minds of the average American. It's not the tactical command post where battle strategies are formed. It's the chambers of the House and Senate where these strategies are truly developed. War is no longer a matter of killing bad guys and destroying enemy equipment. Wars are now defined by the perceptions portrayed by the news media, the internet and sound bites uttered by politicians. The Truth is no longer a factor; Perception is the only factor.
The military is still a viable tool in enforcing foreign policy; but modern leaders need to understand that today's military can only be used as a temporary solution and not a long-range solution. Send in the military; gain the immediate objectives; then pull the military out and go back to diplomacy, economic pressure, humanitarian aid and other incentives/sanctions as the long-range strategy. Otherwise, we will end up going from one quagmire to another.
Vietnam was the primer, and we collectively ignored it.
What they reveal is a change in who controls society, and who has the voice. When the pussies take charge, it's over. The fact is, SunniMan's crap about the anti-war crowd being right applies only to losers who have no f-ing idea where they came from, and have lost the stones to stand up for who they are and what they believe.
They are the weak. Those protected by the strong. Every society in which the weak has legislated the strong out of power has COLLAPSED. Pick one and argue otherwise.
Invading iraq is non sequitur. Next.
What these statements reveal is the change in the nature of modern warfare. For years, we believed that the ultimate modern war would be fought on the Fulda Gap between massive tank armies arrayed along a continent-wide battlefield augmented by a sophisticated, multi-dimensional battle space that encompassed air power, naval power, long-range rocket systems and information dominance fought out in cyberspace. The truth of the matter is that Vietnam was the forerunner of the modern 21st century war. For a long time, the military treated Vietnam as the anomaly to modern war-fighting doctrine when it was, in fact, the blueprint of how future wars were going to be fought.
Modern war in the 21st century is not won or lost on the battlefield. It is won or lost back home by the opinions formed in the minds of the average American. It's not the tactical command post where battle strategies are formed. It's the chambers of the House and Senate where these strategies are truly developed. War is no longer a matter of killing bad guys and destroying enemy equipment. Wars are now defined by the perceptions portrayed by the news media, the internet and sound bites uttered by politicians. The Truth is no longer a factor; Perception is the only factor.
The military is still a viable tool in enforcing foreign policy; but modern leaders need to understand that today's military can only be used as a temporary solution and not a long-range solution. Send in the military; gain the immediate objectives; then pull the military out and go back to diplomacy, economic pressure, humanitarian aid and other incentives/sanctions as the long-range strategy. Otherwise, we will end up going from one quagmire to another.
Vietnam was the primer, and we collectively ignored it.
What they reveal is a change in who controls society, and who has the voice. When the pussies take charge, it's over. The fact is, SunniMan's crap about the anti-war crowd being right applies only to losers who have no f-ing idea where they came from, and have lost the stones to stand up for who they are and what they believe.
They are the weak. Those protected by the strong. Every society in which the weak has legislated the strong out of power has COLLAPSED. Pick one and argue otherwise.
By the most conservative definition, we shouldn't get involved in the affairs of other countries unless they attack us directly. By that strict definition, we had no business attacking Afghanistan. I don't happen to agree with that, but I mention it just to emphasize how modern warfare has changed. There's more to it than just going over to another country and kicking someone's ass.
In the past, it was pretty easy to define who was the enemy and whose ass we needed to kick. This is no longer true today. It has nothing to do with the politics of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservatives, MSNBC vs. FOXNews or Democrats vs. Republicans. Unlike the traditional wars of the past, we can't simply draw battle lines on a map and define victory in terms of seizing terrain because we no longer seize and control terrain. We occupy terrain still populated by civilians, some of whom may be insurgents who serve our troops breakfast in the morning and plant IEDs on a road at night.
Just to set the record straight, all I've been referring to is the deployment of conventional troops into an unconventional scenario. That's a recipe for disaster, again, as we learned in Vietnam. I am, on the other hand, a big proponent for the employment of special operations forces. President John Kennedy was way ahead of his time when he instituted the use of Army Special Forces and Navy SEALs which eventually grew into the modern JSOC. The problem is that to truly implement SOF, we have to have an open mind. Culturally, we don't. It's across the political spectrum and not just limited to the left or right. It's both. Look at how upset the nation got over a couple pictures of some naked Iraqis in a prison cell. Until we learn to stop being so squeamish over these things, we won't be able to unleash the full potential of special operations doctrine. The French, Brits and Aussies don't have a problem with how they implement their Shadow Warriors.
We do.
Invading iraq is non sequitur. Next.
So over 4,000 dead Anerican soldiers
20,0000 wounded
8 years of fighting
and approaching a trillion wasted dollars
is a non sequitur!!!!
The forces opposed to us in afghanistain isn't composed of a "rag-tag bunch of amateurs".
The have been repelling invaders for several dozen generations and resistence to invaders is embedded in their culture.
They use the same tactics, and set up ambushes, in the same valleys and mountain passes that their ancestors successfully utitized.
Are you really that goofyCorrection, we arent the invaders, the Taliban are the invaders. We are the liberators,
Also, i dont appreciate you including yourself as a citizen of the US
Are you really that goofyCorrection, we arent the invaders, the Taliban are the invaders. We are the liberators,
The Taliban is made up of Afghan citizens.
And yes, we did invade their country.
I see you forgot your meds today fagboyThe Taliban is made up of crazy muslims that murder true Afghani citizens. They hold public executions by stoning people to death. They murdered and raped entire populations when they invaded cities, and they took the women to keep as sex slaves. They tortured people for listening to music and even for ring bells for fucks sake. Women have no rights and are treated as property. I could go on and on with this stuff.
They are insane, of course they are muslims, so that should be of no surprise. Muslims are inferior by default, just take a look at dirty muslim nations, where illiteracy is rampant and technological breakthroughs dont exist. Muslims invent nothing, contribute nothing, other than murder and that dumbass high pitched "lalalalala" thing they do. They are a bunch of friggin weirdos, just like you Sunni. Im not surprised you would stick up for them.
I see you forgot your meds today fagboyThe Taliban is made up of crazy muslims that murder true Afghani citizens. They hold public executions by stoning people to death. They murdered and raped entire populations when they invaded cities, and they took the women to keep as sex slaves. They tortured people for listening to music and even for ring bells for fucks sake. Women have no rights and are treated as property. I could go on and on with this stuff.
They are insane, of course they are muslims, so that should be of no surprise. Muslims are inferior by default, just take a look at dirty muslim nations, where illiteracy is rampant and technological breakthroughs dont exist. Muslims invent nothing, contribute nothing, other than murder and that dumbass high pitched "lalalalala" thing they do. They are a bunch of friggin weirdos, just like you Sunni. Im not surprised you would stick up for them.
