Korean cold war heating up again?

[Tibe]

Its easy to say "il travel away", harder to acctually do it you know...

[Casimir]

The unconventional drone attacks have greatly suppressed organization of terrorist groups in the Pakistani frontier, but they are operating as powerful and probably more successful then ever in regions across North Africa.  Syria, for example, the "opposition" there is basically "Al-Queda" or at least they are the most powerful faction making up the resistance.

We 100 percent lost in Afghanistan, literally defeated by the Taliban everywhere except the capital city and a small ring around it.  The rest is Taliban controlled, and they only got more territory the longer we fought.  No matter what we "liberated" the Taliban took it back the moment we left.  Just not enough troops by us.

Also we "destroyed" the Iraqi army because most Ba'athists went into the civilian population and managed to terrorize the population and create unstability for the past decade nearly unopposed.  We just didn't have enough troops to accomplish anything.  We never have.

More troops on foreign soil wouldn't achieve anything, except more coffins draped in flags. These were idealist wars fought for 'hearts and minds' of a people who were never interested in what was on offer. Afghanistan was a mess when the British first went in, it was a mess when the Russians went in the same is true for America.

I don't think NK would go down such s route if there was to be a war, at least I hope not.

[Tennenoth]

Not to detract from the seriousness of this whole thread or anything but a friend sent me this and I thought it was funny. Not sure if the advert is in other countries however.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Tyr_]

To be honest afghanistan is the americans own fault. Soviets had it quite under control thanks to their superior equipment, but then the genius US Government got the idea to support afghanistan with better weapons (rocket launchers, etc) that - unlike the AK the afghans had - could bring down russian helicopters.
Without the americans interfering afghanistan could still be under control.

[Kafein]

To be honest afghanistan is the americans own fault. Soviets had it quite under control thanks to their superior equipment, but then the genius US Government got the idea to support afghanistan with better weapons (rocket launchers, etc) that - unlike the AK the afghans had - could bring down russian helicopters.
Without the americans interfering afghanistan could still be under control.

And the USSR would have fallen with Afghanistan under its control, who knows what would be there now.

[Malaclypse]

Not totally convinced this whole hysteria isn't just yellow journalism based on poor translations from poorly cited sources.

[[ptx]]

To be honest afghanistan is the americans own fault. Soviets had it quite under control thanks to their superior equipment, but then the genius US Government got the idea to support afghanistan with better weapons (rocket launchers, etc) that - unlike the AK the afghans had - could bring down russian helicopters.
Without the americans interfering afghanistan could still be under control.

Lolno. Afghans beat USSR because of terrain. Soviets lost fucktons of troops in the mountains, in afghan ambushes. American equipment probably helped them to some extent, but they could've achieved the same with looted RPGs and AKs.

[Vibe]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Tears of Destiny]

We 100 percent lost in Afghanistan, literally defeated by the Taliban everywhere except the capital city and a small ring around it.  The rest is Taliban controlled, and they only got more territory the longer we fought.  No matter what we "liberated" the Taliban took it back the moment we left.  Just not enough troops by us.

Historical backing of this? As in actual cited sources from anywhere, really? This is all just so wrong, by the general historical consensus of the world's bookkeeping.


The Taliban were pushed back and had an all-time low (supporter/manpower wise) in 2006 where they even wanted to sign treaties promising that they would no longer use Afghanistan as a base of offensive operations (which we ignored), and only controlled small regions, not until much, much later did they experience a resurgence in the world as a whole and even now are not as influential as they used to be in Afghanistan.
They did not "take" everything back the moment "we" left, in the majority of the military exercises waged against them (I said majority before you go ballistic and name one or three contrary examples).
Lastly, thinking "more troops" would have solved things is probably the most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone babble about the conflict, as this is in no way shape or form a classic war of old where boots on the ground fixes everything, and is instead a conflict with much deeper roots then just manpower.