How did a group Armed with assault rifles and RPG's defeat the U.S. military?

[SavannahMann]

You’re obviously having a hard time following this conversation. Do you think the Taliban defeated our military with assault rifles? Yes or no?

Yes. And no.

 

[Slade3200]

Not having a hard time at all, did you state the following?

Yes I did. Did you understand what I was talking about? No

 

[whitehall]

They didn't defeat the U.S. Military, they defeated democrat regimes who had no will to fight. The gulf War proved that American Troops could fight on any terrain and defeat the homies on their own ground but democrats hated the concept. The greatest armed force on the globe could have sent the towel heads dragging their dumb asses in a week with conventional weapons if the fat asses in the Pentagon and the sissie democrats gave the authorization. The crazy concept (mostly) democrats adopted in the late 20th century was that air superiority was unfair and every life on the ground had to be accounted for or members of the military would be held responsible in a courts martial. Amazingly that concept was abandoned for a short time when slick Willie found his pants down in the Oval Office. Clinton bypassed congress and ordered the carpet bombing of a defenseless country and the freaking media cheered him on. We live in strange times

 

[DukeU]

Yes I did. Did you understand what I was talking about? No

Ok let's hear it. This should be good.

 

[Oddball]

How did a group armed with assault rilfes and RPG's defeat the United States military.? The U.S. had tanks, B52's B 1 bombers ,helicopters, and other weapons of war, but were not able to defeat the taliban. How did this happen. Your thoughts.

Murica has the watches, the Afghans have the time.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok let's hear it. This should be good.

It’s already been explained. Can’t help you any more than that

 

[22lcidw]

Which one? The current and last two presidents withdrew from Afghanistan. I suppose we could strap a pack on you and send you over there to stop a bullet. or maybe someone you love?

Whatever the argument is at this point, the Americans there should perhaps have left before we did. This is the main issue.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Starting with Vietnam, we are in the business of going to war, but never in the business of winning it.

Today, we are more concerned about raising the rainbow flag at a military facility, and more concerned about "equity" in the military, than actually creating a fighting force.
When we do fight, we are not willing to do what's necessary to force the enemy into an unconditional surrender.

This is why I will NEVER again support sending our military into war OTHER than to repel an attack on our homeland.

Fuck 'em, I'm done!

 

[SavannahMann]

Starting with Vietnam, we are in the business of going to war, but never in the business of winning it.

Today, we are more concerned about raising the rainbow flag at a military facility, and more concerned about "equity" in the military, than actually creating a fighting force.
When we do fight, we are not willing to do what's necessary to force the enemy into an unconditional surrender.

This is why I will NEVER again support sending our military into war OTHER than to repel an attack on our homeland.

Fuck 'em, I'm done!

Phooey.

The military has the weapons, tactics, and personnel to win the battles. Where we fall down is afterwards.

To win in Afghanistan would take a century. Generations to change the idealism of the people and return them to a sectarian society instead of a collection of villages.

We were never going to invest the time and money it would take. We would spend billions on bullets and bombs but watch people howl at anything else.

We spent the money after War II. That is why we had the clear victory. We rebuilt and guided the people to a republic status. Both in Germany and Japan. Even Italy.

We poured tons of money into the Marshal Plan. And in doing so made Yugoslavia a cousin to the Soviets instead of a loyal satellite. Among other things.

Japan also got assistance.

But Afghanistan. Forget it. Somebody else should pay. Let the Oil Rich Arabs pay for that.

We win the battles. Winning the peace takes longer and costs even more. And we have been unwilling to do anything to win the peace since Korea.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How did a group armed with assault rilfes and RPG's defeat the United States military.? The U.S. had tanks, B52's B 1 bombers ,helicopters, and other weapons of war, but were not able to defeat the taliban. How did this happen. Your thoughts.

Tanks were not used in Afghanistan because they are not suited for the terrain. Helicopters are susceptible to those RPGs you mentioned. Those bombers have difficulty hitting targets in mountainous terrain.

We effectively lost Vietnam to even worse equipped insurgents.

Politicians would not let our troops fight in either conflict.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did a group armed with assault rilfes and RPG's defeat the United States military.? The U.S. had tanks, B52's B 1 bombers ,helicopters, and other weapons of war, but were not able to defeat the taliban. How did this happen. Your thoughts.

Piss poor leadership who considered "White supremacy" the enemy

 

[theHawk]

How did a group armed with assault rilfes and RPG's defeat the United States military.? The U.S. had tanks, B52's B 1 bombers ,helicopters, and other weapons of war, but were not able to defeat the taliban. How did this happen. Your thoughts.

They didn’t defeat the US military. Our installed senile leader choose to fuck up our withdrawal in order to embarrass the country.

 

[SavannahMann]

Tanks were not used in Afghanistan because they are not suited for the terrain. Helicopters are susceptible to those RPGs you mentioned. Those bombers have difficulty hitting targets in mountainous terrain.

We effectively lost Vietnam to even worse equipped insurgents.

Politicians would not let our troops fight in either conflict.

No. Sorry. You are wrong.

What would it have taken to actually win in Afghanistan? John McCain in 2008 had it right. It would take 100 years. And I believe he was right.

Why? It would take generations of education to be able to establish a solid Secular Society and Government. And it would cost ten times per year more than we were willing to spend.

We would have to build infrastructure, technology, schools, industry, and the list goes on and on. We would have to establish representative government in villages where they had been doing it that way for 1,500 years. The way of the tribal chieftain.

We never got started in that. We made a few token changes. Schools for girls. A few clinics without a doctor.

We depend the better part of two decades training the Afghani Army. And when it came down to it. They wouldn’t fight. At some point they would need to stand on their own. If 20 years was too soon. How much longer did they need? See the answer above.

Because they were past of a Religious Sectarian Society the religious leaders held much sway. And the Religious leaders believe they should be the ones in charge to run the nation or villages based upon the religious beliefs.

The military won the battles. But the nation lost the war. Not because politicians refused to let the military fight. But because the nation was not going to build an Afghanistan that could truly stand alone.

It was just too expensive.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. Sorry. You are wrong.

What would it have taken to actually win in Afghanistan? John McCain in 2008 had it right. It would take 100 years. And I believe he was right.

Why? It would take generations of education to be able to establish a solid Secular Society and Government. And it would cost ten times per year more than we were willing to spend.

We would have to build infrastructure, technology, schools, industry, and the list goes on and on. We would have to establish representative government in villages where they had been doing it that way for 1,500 years. The way of the tribal chieftain.

We never got started in that. We made a few token changes. Schools for girls. A few clinics without a doctor.

We depend the better part of two decades training the Afghani Army. And when it came down to it. They wouldn’t fight. At some point they would need to stand on their own. If 20 years was too soon. How much longer did they need? See the answer above.

Because they were past of a Religious Sectarian Society the religious leaders held much sway. And the Religious leaders believe they should be the ones in charge to run the nation or villages based upon the religious beliefs.

The military won the battles. But the nation lost the war. Not because politicians refused to let the military fight. But because the nation was not going to build an Afghanistan that could truly stand alone.

It was just too expensive.

No. Sorry but you changed the question.

It would have been relatively easy to win militarily, but the politicians tried to win the peace.

Think back to Desert Storm. That was lasted only a few days because we got in there, kicked ass, restored Kuwait to it's former status, and destroyed enough of Saddam's army to prevent him from doing it again. We never even attempted to do to Iraq what was attempted in Afghanistan.

 

[Desperado]

How did a group armed with assault rilfes and RPG's defeat the United States military.? The U.S. had tanks, B52's B 1 bombers ,helicopters, and other weapons of war, but were not able to defeat the taliban. How did this happen. Your thoughts.

The US had no intention of winning the war, Corrupt American politicians just wanted to make the companies that supply the American Military rich so they could get their kickbacks,

 

[Flash]

How did a group armed with assault rilfes and RPG's defeat the United States military.? The U.S. had tanks, B52's B 1 bombers ,helicopters, and other weapons of war, but were not able to defeat the taliban. How did this happen. Your thoughts.

Don't tell President Dufus. He is convinced that they way that you beat an insurrection is to bomb them with F-15s and then nuke them.

 

[Flash]

Starting with Vietnam, we are in the business of going to war, but never in the business of winning it.

Today, we are more concerned about raising the rainbow flag at a military facility, and more concerned about "equity" in the military, than actually creating a fighting force.
When we do fight, we are not willing to do what's necessary to force the enemy into an unconditional surrender.

This is why I will NEVER again support sending our military into war OTHER than to repel an attack on our homeland.

Fuck 'em, I'm done!

Our mission in Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden, the asshole responsible for 911.

We let him go at Tora Bora. General Franks made a dumb ass decision not to commit enough troops.

We had another chance to call it quits after Bin Laden was killed but instead the war was escalated by Obama.

The mission became nation building and that was never going to work in a tribal nation.

Trump rightfully made the decision to stop the nation building and to get out.

Under Trump the withdrawal would have been orderly and in a competent manner.

Under President Potatohead it was fucked up.

 

[22lcidw]

The US had no intention of winning the war, Corrupt American politicians just wanted to make the companies that supply the American Military rich so they could get their kickbacks,

The problem is the tentacles cross both lines of the two parties we are forced to vote for. We are heading towards a government envisioned by globalists for centuries. They took their time and patience and slowly took control of most nations financial and economic systems which affects the Political class in which there is infection with in them. So now we have the decline and feminization of the West. And the rise of other nations around the world. A more equlibreum is the goal and the United States must be taken down. At least half our nation is on their side. We all are eligible for government benefits of some type at some time of life. That is important. At this point, the weapons people have are the only stop left to global dominance not including China and Russia.

 

[Resnic]

I was in the rangers and out of highschool back during early desert storm days.

All I can say it fighting them is like fighting the vietnamese. It's hard to win a war when you have to fight fair and follow rules but the enemy does not, it's also hard to fight an enemy with nothing to lose, it's also hard to fight an enemy driven by an idealology, it's also hard to fight an enemy on their own turf, it's hard to fight an enemy that has been fighting for generations and carrying an AK-47 since they were 12. And imagine fighting someone who would strap a bomb and kill themselves in the hopes they kill others, even their own civilians if need be.

To fight people like that, all I can say is it is not easy. Winning a war isn't just about superior firepower and night vision goggles.

 

[Adrenochrome Junkie]

How did a group armed with assault rilfes and RPG's defeat the United States military.? The U.S. had tanks, B52's B 1 bombers ,helicopters, and other weapons of war, but were not able to defeat the taliban. How did this happen. Your thoughts.

If an insurrection can happen with 0 weapons, then surely the US army stands no chance against the Taliban