The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
No.
Because, again, nobody wins in Afghanistan. If the Soviets couldn't "win" after nearly nine years of occupation, 100,000 combatants, untold atrocities and 2,000,000 Afghan civilians killed, how far were we going to get with troop levels at a fraction of the amount the Soviets dropped in and "nation building" in a place like that?
Obama inherited a mess, but didn't do anything to get us out. Trump inherited the same mess from Obama and really hasn't done enough to get us out.
It's time to go. Let the Chinese have a whirl at it.
Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.
We "could" win, if we wanted to. But we aren't willing to engage in that kind of collateral damage.
Of course Russia could have also won if they weren't worried that a nuke strike could be interpreted as an attack on US interests. And along those lines, China could probably also kick their ass.
Wouldn't be hard to reduce Afghanistan to a huddled mass of what remains of their population after you rain nuclear fire on them and they will truly understand they have been defeated. The only reason they don't know that fear is all their potential enemies are a lot nicer people than they are.
I also think if we hadn't provided assistance to the "freedom fighters", the Russians would still be there and firmly in control. But that was our opportunity to provide some payback for Vietnam and ultimately the tipping point for bringing down the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
I still think it was worth it, but with reservations.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
Obama made sure we couldn't 'win' in Afghanistan with the stupid ROE and turning over hard fought for control to Afghan forces who weren't prepared to fight in the countryside on their own. The really hard years there, 2007-2010, were undone when we pulled back and wouldn't allow people on the ground to actually kill the enemy. Theres no ****ing reasonable point to putting people in harms way if they can't defend themselves and our advantage of air and indirect fire were basically taken away.
The same asshole also sat back and watched Iraq nearly get taken over by ISIS because of spite and petulance.
Thats what happens when you elect a guy who said we were war criminals.
This is yet another bunch of election year poop flung by Dems trying to make the President look bad and another set up by the deep state intel people. Even if it is real intel, would you believe that Trump did anything but do what needed to be done to protect our troops and support the military? The real issue should be... yet again... who the fudge is leaking this intel if real and deal with them.
Last edited by teufelhund1918; 06-30-20 at 06:04.
Repression Is Nine Tenths The Law
Sorry, my last post wasn't very clear. I don't think the mission creep/nation building of the Afghan campaign was ever winnable. The kill people and break things portion certainly was, and we arguably did. But as much as the hands of the military leadership were tied by politicians at home, I think it was incumbent upon them to either convey to leadership that the current course was never going to work or quit in protest. And now many of the same careerist leaders, who should have spoken up forcefully but just rode out the clock, seem like they are fully onboard with keeping the train rolling because it's their turn to get paid.
Last edited by nick84; 06-30-20 at 06:27.
That story has been well debunked.
What happened in Astan for us has been a travesty. What started out as a good, clear mission (find, fix, locate, attack AQ and those specifically harboring them) turned into a hearts/minds-nation-building boondoggle of epic proportions of which every branch and unit wanted a piece.
He's probably being briefed on the grain of rice sized truth that started this story that blew up into Russia, Russia Russia again.
I'm just saying that if I were in a support/training role with some indigenous troops, if PFC Gooney Goo-Goo killed a group of enemy, I would slide him a Franklin and a couple of cartons of smokes.
History was a guide. Nobody has ever "won" in Afghanistan and pacified that country. Largely (IMO) because the population is so regionalized and tribalized it's hard to pacify the whole country. Basically, you make a deal with one tribe/family and you piss off another.
I disagree on the Russians partially, namely on the "firmly" comment. I think the Afghans were going to fight with whatever they had available. I mean, they started the fighting with Enfields and Martini-Henry rifles on horseback fighting against mechanized troops. The Russians may very well have stayed, but the casualty rates still would have been high and international condemnation would have set in eventually. But just like we are doing, the Soviets controlled the cities, the Afghans controlled the country where most of the fighting took place.
Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.
Bookmarks