War in Ukraine

#78,876
#78,876
dalton_vol said:
That's a terrible take, our military did not lose to a bunch of goat herders. No battles were lost. If we truly wanted to change afghanistan, we should have sent Christian missionaries and preach the gospel and the Bible.
Click to expand...

No real objectives were accomplished, and the war was lost. What should have been done, wasn't. The military which was being ran by multiple commanders in chief lost. A bunch of innocent people died, a bunch of Americans lost their limbs and lives, and 1-2 trillion was spent for no real reason. No battles have to be lost to lose a war. Not only did United States lose, they turned over the country to the enemy that didn't have control of the country before hand, gave them billions in money and military equipment.


images


Why exactly are you trying to "change" Afghanistan? (your problem(s) probably start there)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#78,877
#78,877
LSU-SIU said:
No real objectives were accomplished, and the war was lost. What should have been done, wasn't. The military which was being ran by multiple commanders in chief lost. A bunch of innocent people died, a bunch of Americans lost their limbs and lives, and 1-2 trillion was spent for no real reason. No battles have to be lost to lose a war. Not only did United States lose, they turned over the country to the enemy that didn't have control of the country before hand, gave them billions in money and military equipment.


images


Why exactly are you trying to "change" Afghanistan? (your problem(s) probably start there)
Click to expand...
Lol, what?

en.m.wikipedia.org

Killing of Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
#78,879
#78,879
evillawyer said:
Ukraine, the country with no navy, just gave Russia another submarine.

Click to expand...


Large naval ships are a thing of the past, generally speaking. Which is why the large navies of the UK and US are having a hard time dealing with the cave dwellers in Yemen.

Building large naval ships for war seems outdated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#78,885
#78,885
LSU-SIU said:
Large naval ships are a thing of the past, generally speaking. Which is why the large navies of the UK and US are having a hard time dealing with the cave dwellers in Yemen.

Building large naval ships for war seems outdated.
Click to expand...

Lol, we literally only deployed 3 ships, of the entire US navy to the theater.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Operation Prosperity Guardian - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

You're actually trying to rival @Rasputin_Vol for the most poorly informed posts in this thread, aren't you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, NorthDallas40 and Tnslim1
#78,886
#78,886
dalton_vol said:
That's a terrible take, our military did not lose to a bunch of goat herders. No battles were lost. If we truly wanted to change afghanistan, we should have sent Christian missionaries and preach the gospel and the Bible.
Click to expand...
The Afghans were crushed in every battle we fought them in. If we had left one brigade over there for the next 100 years, and then pulled them out, some azzhats would still say; "Look! We lost the war!"
 
#78,888
#78,888
Rasputin_Vol said:
We did lose.
Click to expand...
The Tailban lost, yet....




Large naval ships aren't worthless yet they keep posting information as to large naval ships sinking due to low cost options i.e. drones, remote controlled planes, etc. Let alone missiles, hypersonic missiles, or underwater drones. I'm so confused, next up, Abraham tanks don't burn.

We live in idiocracy times.
 
#78,889
#78,889
norrislakevol said:
The Afghans were crushed in every battle we fought them in. If we had left one brigade over there for the next 100 years, and then pulled them out, some azzhats would still say; "Look! We lost the war!"
Click to expand...

We lost. Not only did you lose, you provided the enemy the whole country which they were unable to accomplish prior to 2001.

Americans died for absolutely no reason, they might as well have jumped off of bridges. Matter of fact, the United States gave aid to the enemy after retreating, and I believe they are owed many more billions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#78,890
#78,890
Those ATACMs are really something else..well really all US precision weapons. AI fighter, drones..heck getting close to being pure machine warfare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#78,892
#78,892
norrislakevol said:
The Afghans were crushed in every battle we fought them in. If we had left one brigade over there for the next 100 years, and then pulled them out, some azzhats would still say; "Look! We lost the war!"
Click to expand...
20 years and $3+ trillion later, we removed The Taliban and they were replaced by The Taliban. Tell me how that is winning?

You all keep saying that the politicians wouldn't let the military move without restraints... yet isn't that a reflection of our civilian leadership? We haven't won jack outside of Grenada and Panama since WWII, but yet you clowns still want to support these ridiculous military expeditions. Hell, we can't even beat The Houthis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#78,893
#78,893
Rasputin_Vol said:
20 years and $3+ trillion later, we removed The Taliban and they were replaced by The Taliban. Tell me how that is winning?

<nonsensical drivel>
Click to expand...

And yet we had control of 95% of Afghanistan, and suffered less than 2,000 casualties from enemy action during the 20 years we were in country, and could have literally sat in there till the end of time if we'd chosen to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#78,894
#78,894
Rasputin_Vol said:
20 years and $3+ trillion later, we removed The Taliban and they were replaced by The Taliban. Tell me how that is winning?

You all keep saying that the politicians wouldn't let the military move without restraints... yet isn't that a reflection of our civilian leadership? We haven't won jack outside of Grenada and Panama since WWII, but yet you clowns still want to support these ridiculous military expeditions. Hell, we can't even beat The Houthis.
Click to expand...
You are not we.

You are an anti-American scrub of a human being.

If by some chance you actually live in our free country, please take your pro Putin ass back to Russia where you belong.
 
#78,895
#78,895
Rasputin_Vol said:
20 years and $3+ trillion later, we removed The Taliban and they were replaced by The Taliban. Tell me how that is winning?

You all keep saying that the politicians wouldn't let the military move without restraints... yet isn't that a reflection of our civilian leadership? We haven't won jack outside of Grenada and Panama since WWII, but yet you clowns still want to support these ridiculous military expeditions. Hell, we can't even beat The Houthis.
Click to expand...

Its fairly insane we are actually talking about this subject, next up, the United States was victorious in Vietnam.

They were all looking to hitch a ride on the last helicopter to the victory party.

This is what victory looks like. 😂

Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg


Seriously, poor saps lost limbs and life for absolutely no purpose..... oh yeah, Freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#78,896
#78,896
Rasputin_Vol said:
20 years and $3+ trillion later, we removed The Taliban and they were replaced by The Taliban. Tell me how that is winning?

You all keep saying that the politicians wouldn't let the military move without restraints... yet isn't that a reflection of our civilian leadership? We haven't won jack outside of Grenada and Panama since WWII, but yet you clowns still want to support these ridiculous military expeditions. Hell, we can't even beat The Houthis.
Click to expand...
The people who wanted to win definitely won.
None of these conflicts have been about anything other than money. Your definition of who “won” is irrelevant to what their goal was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#78,898
#78,898
Rasputin_Vol said:
Dude, they're being shot down by the dozen. WTF are you talking about?
Click to expand...
they are ballistic missiles, so yea they can presumably be shot down by S-300 or S-400. I was talking about the precision to hit a corvette at pier with a BM. Exponential orders of magnitude better than that Iranian trash you hold in such high esteem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#78,900
#78,900
Orangeburst said:
they are ballistic missiles, so yea they can presumably be shot down by S-300 or S-400. I was talking about the precision to hit a corvette at pier with a BM. Exponential orders of magnitude better than that Iranian trash you hold in such high esteem.
Click to expand...
If you fire enough of them, one or two will get through. No surprise about that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top