America's loss in Afghanistan, is the End of America as the sole Super Power.

Correct. The context is some anti-American fuck is claiming that the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden, and that our President refused because he was so anxious for war.


In that context, whether or not we had the evidence they had the nerve to ask for, is irrelevant.


The only reasonable answer from them was "yes sir, thank you sir".


Anything else translated to "we choose a war instead."

I can't believe, you are as old as you are, and as uneducated, or have as short of a term memory as you do.

Do you even remember who funded, trained, and created the Mujahedin, and why we did so, that eventually organized politically into the Taliban? :dunno:

You aren't even worth me trying to educate or spend time on anymore. . .

reagantaliban.jpg
 
The stealing of the 2020 Election by the Socialist is what marks the end of America.

Not caring by those that know better is a major contributor.
 
Correct. The context is some anti-American fuck is claiming that the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden, and that our President refused because he was so anxious for war.


In that context, whether or not we had the evidence they had the nerve to ask for, is irrelevant.


The only reasonable answer from them was "yes sir, thank you sir".


Anything else translated to "we choose a war instead."
Here the “informed“ point of view among the mouth breathing knuckle dragger class is made available to the rest of us.
 
I a lot of folks became wealthy off of the Afgan policy, and it weakened the US economy and society.

No one will be held to account.

Did you miss post #109?

:dunno:
Of course they did. And maybe even more became wealthy out of the Iraq war. And yes, no one will be held accountable.

But I don't get your point. The end of the US is approaching because the American elites start wars because of own 'economic' reasons?

And why then withdrawing from Afghanistan is increasing the pace of this end, if the opposite should be true. They should be eager to stay in Afghanistan as long as they can because that is their source of easy money.

Withdrawing from Afghanistan has one, among others, significant intent. That is to make Afghanistan a headache of not the US, but Russia and China.
 
If that was not your intent, then you did it wrong.

Not from my point of view.

The Military would have no say in the German Position on nato expansion.

?

And that is the question as to whether or not your leadership was stupid or not.

?

NATO expansion was stupid.

?

Especially as your nation increases trade with Russia.

We trade with "Russia" since decades of thousands of years.

 
I can't believe, you are as old as you are, and as uneducated, or have as short of a term memory as you do.

Do you even remember who funded, trained, and created the Mujahedin, and why we did so, that eventually organized politically into the Taliban? :dunno:

You aren't even worth me trying to educate or spend time on anymore. . .

reagantaliban.jpg


That is very dishonest, on many levels. My point stands.


We asked the Taliban for the Osama bin Laden, and they chose war. That was their choice. The claim that they offered him to us is a lie.
 
Seems like I 've heard that every time a democrat entered the White House since JFK.

JFK did steal the election with the help of his buddies in Chicago. They even bragged about it.

LBJ didn't.

Jimmy Carter didn't.

Slick Willy didn't.

The Worthless Negro didn't.

Joe Dufus did with the help of his Chicom buddies. You know, the ones that hated Trump insisting on fair trade deals and the ones that made the Dufus family filthy rich.
 
Of course they did. And maybe even more became wealthy out of the Iraq war. And yes, no one will be held accountable.

But I don't get your point. The end of the US is approaching because the American elites start wars because of own 'economic' reasons?

And why then withdrawing from Afghanistan is increasing the pace of this end, if the opposite should be true. They should be eager to stay in Afghanistan as long as they can because that is their source of easy money.

Withdrawing from Afghanistan has one, among others, significant intent. That is to make Afghanistan a headache of not the US, but Russia and China.
We entered Afghanistan 20 years ago "to get the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and to deliver justice to Osama Bin Laden, and to degrade the terrorist threat to keep Afghanistan from becoming a base from which attacks could be continued against the United States." We were successful in fulfilling our goals. We got Bin Laden, we got the terrorists, and we did keep Afghanistan from becoming a base for terrorism for 20 years. However, once we entered the war we created other goals that were not realistic such as creating a lasting democratic form of government, equal rights for women, and bringing the country into the 21st century through education and commerce. Although we did make some progress, these goals can only be accomplished by the Afghan people.

IMHO, getting out of Afghanistan is long over due. What we have to gain by staying simply does not justify the cost in lives and dollars. We had significant accomplishments and we accomplished our goals and now it's time to get out. We also created an environment that will make it difficult for the Talban to rule as it did in the 1990's assuming it gains full control of the nation.
 
I agree that there is a 'house of cards' element to China. But if they take Taiwan, the US will no longer be the world's sole superpower. And I fear they will. I'm not sure we can stop them without launching nukes. I'm not sure we can if we do.
Why would that action herald the end of US superpower status?

Russia took a part of Ukraine. That does not change the power that the US wields, Taiwan will be no different.

The question is how far will we let this go before we take real action. That action is not in nukes but in dollars. Dollars that stop flowing to China when we get the worlds economic powers to cease most trade with them. That is the sole answer to China's rising influence.

That is going to take real change though, most notably in building up sources of goods that we do not currently have elsewhere. Things like electronics.
 
Correct. The context is some anti-American fuck is claiming that the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden, and that our President refused because he was so anxious for war.


In that context, whether or not we had the evidence they had the nerve to ask for, is irrelevant.


The only reasonable answer from them was "yes sir, thank you sir".


Anything else translated to "we choose a war instead."
.....
Wow. Turn the tables and you would be screaming bloody murder. I guess the entire planet should just prostrate themselves before the US.
 
Why would that action herald the end of US superpower status?
Taiwan is key to our dominance in the Pacific and southeast Asia. Without it, we're an "also-ran" in the region and will be forced to share power with China.
The question is how far will we let this go before we take real action. That action is not in nukes but in dollars. Dollars that stop flowing to China when we get the worlds economic powers to cease most trade with them. That is the sole answer to China's rising influence.
Right, and with our fumbling of covid, we're weakened in that regard. If we don't bounce back soon, it won't be enough leverage.

Here's an interesting article on the topic (sure hoping it's wrong):
 
Last edited:
Taiwan is key to our dominance in the Pacific and southeast Asia. Without it, we're an "also-ran" in the region and will be forced to share power with China.

Right, and with our fumbling of covid, we're weakened in that regard. If we don't bounce back soon, it won't be enough leverage.

Here's an interesting article on the topic (sure hoping it's wrong):
Sure hope so too. In a war with China, the entire world to include China would lose massively. As Einstein stated:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

We are to damn advanced for a war between major world powers. The importance of massive floating ships is overrated IMHO though, they can be sunk with a single explosive that costs far less and airpower can now be projected around the planet from anywhere.
 
Sure hope so too. In a war with China, the entire world to include China would lose massively. As Einstein stated:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

We are to damn advanced for a war between major world powers. The importance of massive floating ships is overrated IMHO though, they can be sunk with a single explosive that costs far less and airpower can now be projected around the planet from anywhere.
The chance of an all out war with China is extremely unlikely. China is winning the economic war. They are on target to be the largest economy in the world. What they have to loose in a major war is far more than what they have to gain. Unlike the old days during the cold war, China's interest in spreading Communism around the world pales compared to their interest in dominating economic markets.

China's experience in battle is quite limited considering the size of their military. After the Vietnamese War, almost all of China's military action have been over the border disputes, the largest being Sino Vietnamese Ware of 1979. China's part in the Vietnamese War was basically one of support providing large amounts military hardware, supplies, training, bridge and road building, and logistics. While the North Vietnam had over 600,000 casualties, China's causalities were about 1,100. The last war that China was engaged in that was truly a major war was the Korean war where causalities exceed over a million men.

Unlike US, the Chinese government has never fought a war more than 500 miles from it's borders and as a result it's military is built around fighting wars nears it's boarder.
 
Last edited:
Sure hope so too. In a war with China, the entire world to include China would lose massively. As Einstein stated:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

We are to damn advanced for a war between major world powers. The importance of massive floating ships is overrated IMHO though, they can be sunk with a single explosive that costs far less and airpower can now be projected around the planet from anywhere.
Both Russia and the US seem to be content to wage limited wars to attain limited goals such as in Iraq or the Ukraine. China only engages in Border Wars. It has not fought a major war since Korea, 70 years ago. As long as the superpowers maintain a nuclear deterrent, their wars will be limited in scope.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top