The Orange One May Take Loss In Afghanistan If Congressmen Have Way

ThoughtCrimes

Old Navy Vet
Jun 25, 2012
4,331
994
245
Desert Southwest
After 16 years and a tremendous loss in blood and treasure, there is a bipartisan swelling of the urge to derive a exit plan in Afghanistan. The ball has been fumbled there now by three different administrations, bin Laden is dead and the plan of Nation Building has been a failure. It's been just another undeclared war like Vietnam which has drug on way too long.

"WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration contemplates sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, a bipartisan group in Congress has demanded a floor debate on the war's endgame and whether it remains in America's interest to remain engaged there militarily.

On the eve of NATO's highly anticipated summit in Brussels, Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Democrat John Garamendi of California will greet the media in Washington on Wednesday to explain their proposed legislation seeking to halt, with few exceptions, any further financing for U.S. activities in Afghanistan. After 16 years, victory there is no longer attainable, they say, nor is the effort worth continued investment in American blood and treasure.

"Tell me your definition of victory. What is it? Street cars going down the roads that the Taliban blew up?" Jones, who introduced the bill, asked rhetorically during a recent interview with Military Times in his Capitol Hill office. "Hell, we've been training the damn Afghans for 16 years. You can train a monkey to ride a bicycle in three.""

The full story here from Military Times:
As Trump weighs more troops in Afghanistan, some in Congress seek to freeze his funding
 
After 16 years and a tremendous loss in blood and treasure, there is a bipartisan swelling of the urge to derive a exit plan in Afghanistan. The ball has been fumbled there now by three different administrations, bin Laden is dead and the plan of Nation Building has been a failure. It's been just another undeclared war like Vietnam which has drug on way too long.

"WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration contemplates sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, a bipartisan group in Congress has demanded a floor debate on the war's endgame and whether it remains in America's interest to remain engaged there militarily.

On the eve of NATO's highly anticipated summit in Brussels, Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Democrat John Garamendi of California will greet the media in Washington on Wednesday to explain their proposed legislation seeking to halt, with few exceptions, any further financing for U.S. activities in Afghanistan. After 16 years, victory there is no longer attainable, they say, nor is the effort worth continued investment in American blood and treasure.

"Tell me your definition of victory. What is it? Street cars going down the roads that the Taliban blew up?" Jones, who introduced the bill, asked rhetorically during a recent interview with Military Times in his Capitol Hill office. "Hell, we've been training the damn Afghans for 16 years. You can train a monkey to ride a bicycle in three.""

The full story here from Military Times:
As Trump weighs more troops in Afghanistan, some in Congress seek to freeze his funding


Another ISIS on its way if they do, got to stay forever like in Japan , Germany and South Korea...


.
 
The only way to win there - stay home.


Agreed, but a few B-52 sorties every once in a while is good as well.
That does nothing at all. Some wars simply can't be won, only lost.


All military wars can be won , if you kill everyone


.
Only if you kill everyone and most wouldn't call that winning since there is no one left to say they won.


Clearly he meant the enemy. Total war.
 
The only way to win there - stay home.


Agreed, but a few B-52 sorties every once in a while is good as well.
That does nothing at all. Some wars simply can't be won, only lost.


All military wars can be won , if you kill everyone


.
Only if you kill everyone and most wouldn't call that winning since there is no one left to say they won.


Clearly he meant the enemy. Total war.
I know what he meant (and he's wrong).
 
The only way to win there - stay home.


Agreed, but a few B-52 sorties every once in a while is good as well.
That does nothing at all. Some wars simply can't be won, only lost.


All military wars can be won , if you kill everyone


.
Only if you kill everyone and most wouldn't call that winning since there is no one left to say they won.


Who said anything about a score card to brag on?



.
 
Agreed, but a few B-52 sorties every once in a while is good as well.
That does nothing at all. Some wars simply can't be won, only lost.


All military wars can be won , if you kill everyone


.
Only if you kill everyone and most wouldn't call that winning since there is no one left to say they won.


Clearly he meant the enemy. Total war.
I know what he meant (and he's wrong).


How am I wrong?


.
 
The only way to win there - stay home.


Agreed, but a few B-52 sorties every once in a while is good as well.
That does nothing at all. Some wars simply can't be won, only lost.


All military wars can be won , if you kill everyone


.
Only if you kill everyone and most wouldn't call that winning since there is no one left to say they won.


Who said anything about a score card to brag on?



.
Not much point in winning a war when you can't talk it up.
 
That does nothing at all. Some wars simply can't be won, only lost.


All military wars can be won , if you kill everyone


.
Only if you kill everyone and most wouldn't call that winning since there is no one left to say they won.


Clearly he meant the enemy. Total war.
I know what he meant (and he's wrong).


How am I wrong?


.
Because some wars, say against illegal drugs, Islam, no-hitters not actually meaning no one hit the damn ball, cannot be won.
 
All military wars can be won , if you kill everyone


.
Only if you kill everyone and most wouldn't call that winning since there is no one left to say they won.


Clearly he meant the enemy. Total war.
I know what he meant (and he's wrong).


How am I wrong?


.
Because some wars, say against illegal drugs, Islam, no-hitters not actually meaning no one hit the damn ball, cannot be won.


With wars like against illegal drugs, you have to change the attitude of citzens


No?


That's a psychological war...that you liberals want to win by degenerating society... Into chaos


.
 
Only if you kill everyone and most wouldn't call that winning since there is no one left to say they won.


Clearly he meant the enemy. Total war.
I know what he meant (and he's wrong).


How am I wrong?


.
Because some wars, say against illegal drugs, Islam, no-hitters not actually meaning no one hit the damn ball, cannot be won.


With wars like against illegal drugs, you have to change the attitude of citzens


No?


That's a psychological war...that you liberals want to win by degenerating society... Into chaos


.
That is an example of a war that cannot be won, using the military or not.
 
Agreed, but a few B-52 sorties every once in a while is good as well.
That does nothing at all. Some wars simply can't be won, only lost.


All military wars can be won , if you kill everyone


.
Only if you kill everyone and most wouldn't call that winning since there is no one left to say they won.


Who said anything about a score card to brag on?



.
Not much point in winning a war when you can't talk it up.


have you ever served your country brahj?
 

Forum List

Back
Top