How do we win in Afghanistan?

#402
#402
Rasputin_Vol said:
Bin Laden and 15 of the hijackers were Saudis. I'm not sure why you are having trouble with this.
Click to expand...
And bin Laden and his band of merry men were in Afghanistan. If an American acting on his own commits a crime, say in Britain, should Britain attack the US?
 
#403
#403
CagleMtnVol said:
In that case in 1942 why didn't we go straight to and invade the island of Japan instead of attacking a little island like Guadalcanal or our first time in the sandbox with our invasion of Morocco and Algeria after all they are long way from the Pacific.

Japan was who attacked us not Moroccans or Algerians.
Click to expand...
Why dont you explain to me why we didn't go directly to Japan.

Then explain to me afterwards how we can't go after the Saudis 17 years after 9/11...
 
#404
#404
InVOLuntary said:
And bin Laden and his band of merry men were in Afghanistan. If an American acting on his own commits a crime, say in Britain, should Britain attack the US?
Click to expand...

See, this is where your argument falls apart in 2 ways. One, we did exactly that in Afghanistan. We attacked an entire country because of one guy or group of guys acting on their own.

And secondly, we compounded that mistake by going after someone that had nothing to do with it at all (Saddam and Iraq).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#405
#405
Rasputin_Vol said:
Bin Laden and 15 of the hijackers were Saudis. I'm not sure why you are having trouble with this.
Click to expand...
So they were Saudis, your point is? Bin Laden his lieutenants were based in Afghanistan and that is where they had those massive training camps.

Are you saying we should have attacked and invaded Saudi Arabia because they were from there instead?

That is like dims blaming all gun owners when ever someone goes out and does a mass shooting.
 
#406
#406
CagleMtnVol said:
So they were Saudis, your point is? Bin Laden his lieutenants were based in Afghanistan and that is where they had those massive training camps.

Are you saying we should have attacked and invaded Saudi Arabia because they were from there instead?

That is like dims blaming all gun owners when ever someone goes out and does a mass shooting.
Click to expand...
The opening post about this was about harboring and supporting people that killed 3000 Americans. If funding these Madrassas over several countries and radicalizing people into terrorism isn't enough for you to consider Saudi Arabia as the head of the snake, then I can't do anything for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#407
#407
CagleMtnVol said:
So they were Saudis, your point is? Bin Laden his lieutenants were based in Afghanistan and that is where they had those massive training camps.

Are you saying we should have attacked and invaded Saudi Arabia because they were from there instead?

That is like dims blaming all gun owners when ever someone goes out and does a mass shooting.
Click to expand...
And you should be pissed that after 17 years of fighting and billions of dollars and thousands of American lives lost that we find ourselves today negotiating with the very people (Taliban) that you accuse of harboring Bin Laden.
 
#408
#408
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why don't you explain to me why we didn't go directly to Japan.

Then explain to me afterwards how we can't go after the Saudis 17 years after 9/11...
Click to expand...

Short answer, We would have lost "Bigly"!

The Pacific fleet was pretty much wiped out at Pearl. The Army ranked somewhere between 17-21 in the world depending where you looked.

We had no planes, no tanks, no equipment and no fighting men to go into a major offensive.

It took 8 months just to get the equipment and men ready for the Battle of Guadalcanal and another 3 months after that to get the army built up and men & equipment ferried across the Atlantic for Operation Torch.

By the way I highly recommend the book An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson on Operation Torch.
 
Last edited:
#409
#409
CagleMtnVol said:
Short answer, We would have lost "Bigly"!

The Pacific fleet was pretty much wiped out at Pearl. The Army ranked somewhere between 17-21 in the world depending where you looked.

We had no planes, no tanks, no equipment and no fighting men to go into a major offensive.

It took 8 months just to get the equipment and men ready for the Battle of Guadalcanal and another 3 months after that to get the army built up and men & equipment ferried across the Atlantic for Operation Torch.

By the way I highly recommend the book An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson on Operation Torch.
Click to expand...
So in short, we didn't attack Japan early on because we didn't have the military capability early on... not because we did not properly identify who the enemy was, correct? And even in that sense, we did go to war directly with Japan in Guadalcanal.
 
#410
#410
CagleMtnVol said:
Short answer, We would have lost "Bigly"!

The Pacific fleet was pretty much wiped out at Pearl. The Army ranked somewhere between 17-21 in the world depending where you looked.

We had no planes, no tanks, no equipment and no fighting men to go into a major offensive.

It took 8 months just to get the equipment and men ready for the Battle of Guadalcanal and another 3 months after that to get the army built up and men & equipment ferried across the Atlantic for Operation Torch.

By the way I highly recommend the book An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson on Operation Torch.
Click to expand...

There was a second part to my question:
Rasputin_Vol said:
Then explain to me afterwards how we can't go after the Saudis 17 years after 9/11...
Click to expand...
All of this 8 months for this and 3 months for that and we still haven't put a glove on the Saudis in 17 years...
 
#411
#411
Rasputin_Vol said:
See, this is where your argument falls apart in 2 ways. One, we did exactly that in Afghanistan. We attacked an entire country because of one guy or group of guys acting on their own.

And secondly, we compounded that mistake by going after someone that had nothing to do with it at all (Saddam and Iraq).
Click to expand...
It doesn't fall apart. People attacked us that were based in Afghanistan. Afghanistan took a side and it wasn't ours. So, we went after the terrorist and their protectors. Iraq is a totally different argument.
 
#412
#412
InVOLuntary said:
I'm not arguing the Saudi connection to 9/11. The terrorist that were actually responsible were based in Afghanistan. I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this. Bin Laden was responsible for the planning and funding of the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

So if Bin Laden and 15 Saudis happened to infiltrate France and plan the attack from there, we should have invaded France...

You might want to rethink this angle.
 
#414
#414
MercyPercy said:
So if Bin Laden and 15 Saudis happened to infiltrate France and plan the attack from there, we should have invaded France...

You might want to rethink this angle.
Click to expand...
If France was offering them safe haven, absolutely. It's not 15 BTW. It was several thousand bin laden soldiers. So maybe you should rethink the premise of your argument. If had been 15 we would not have invaded.
 
#415
#415
giphy.gif
 
#418
#418
First off I have zero love for the house of Saud. I do agree they’re slime.

Now... that being said how do you just ignore the fact that the acting government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, accepted responsibility for the attack. Were there Saudi Nationals involved with the Taliban in Afghanistan? Of course as well as other Arab and Muslim countries right?

But how do you pin the actions of a group of Saudi citizens onto the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia. Hey I’m good if we can. But can somebody show proof that the actual Saudi government or government officials were involved.
 
Last edited:
#420
#420
Rasputin_Vol said:
Congress releases long-classified ‘28 pages’ on alleged Saudi ties to 9/11

What We Know About Saudi Arabia’s Role in 9/11
Click to expand...

Again Ras I’m no fan of the Saudis. But youre LG level delusional if you call that information worthy of violating the sovereign rights of Saudi Arabia.

The 9/11 Commission report, the most exhaustive study of the attacks, said it found no evidence that the “Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” al-Qaeda.”
Click to expand...

The Saudis are real slime balls. And thus experienced at covering their tracks. I’m amazed we learned as much as we did on that journalist killing recently.
 
#421
#421
MercyPercy said:
So if Bin Laden and 15 Saudis happened to infiltrate France and plan the attack from there, we should have invaded France...

You might want to rethink this angle.
Click to expand...

France would have surrendered them in a heartbeat. It's what they do.
 
#422
#422
Seriously, we can't win in Afghanistan. We went in to get Bin Laden. Mission accomplished. Time to pull out.
 
#423
#423
NorthDallas40 said:
Again Ras I’m no fan of the Saudis. But youre LG level delusional if you call that information worthy of violating the sovereign rights of Saudi Arabia.



The Saudis are real slime balls. And thus experienced at covering their tracks. I’m amazed we learned as much as we did on that journalist killing recently.
Click to expand...
You keep posting stuff like this and you'll eventually convince yourself that the Saudis should have been the real target after 9/11.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top