WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

630

(post is archived)

[–] 5 pts

The world? Not really. With nukes, sure, but not their military. They were never allowed to win in Afghanistan. There was no winning Afghanistan without going door-to-door, cave-to-cave, murdering literally every single Afghan. Even then, it would have been a loss diplomatically.

The U.S. regime was never intending to win the war. It was simply a war to make money for special interest groups, and dumb grunts paid in blood and trauma for every minute the occupation lasted. Soon, all Americans are going to pay for what they spent the last two decades enabling. Drone strikes and suicide jihadis are coming to a place near you. All blamed on a foreign enemy while the domestic enemies pulling the strings sit back and watch as if it were simply a profitable bloodsport.

[–] [deleted] 3 pts

'War Is A Racket' - Major General Smedley Butler

The giant corps that make all the small arms, tanks, planes, missiles make a lot of money selling those things to the military. However more product will not be purchased by the military until what the military currently has is used up. Solution? Get your buddies in congress/WH to start a war in some 3rd world shit-hole and use up all the equipment. Let it get blown up, break down, get old, etc; and then orders for new equipment come in to replace it. The corps make huge bank, and their buddies in congress invest or get kickbacks from the profit.
They all win (money), and we the people lose (soldiers), the people of the 3rd world country lose (civilians).

This is why they don't care about 'winning' the war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The purpose is to make lots of money via the military period. When they're done in one place they'll start a new war elsewhere. Sometime in the next presidency they'll kick off a new war so they can keep profiteering.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Building on "war is a racket"

"Apocalypso Now" by Rob Neumann is technically a comedy routine. But he analyzes how certain empires grew their economies and Influence by planning and waging aggressive wars

[–] 0 pt

There's no grand plan, it's just pure greed.

[–] 2 pts

We were there garding the CIA and friends, poppey fields! nothing more nothing less. We loose either way.

[–] 1 pt

How do yoi define win?

[–] 1 pt

Just like Vietnam, the issue isn't military capacity, it's the political will to fight. The political will of the United States caused the war to be a limited one. The media played up every non-combatant death (real or imagined by the Taliban), and constantly stressed the disproportionality of the fighting. The net result was the US fighting the Taliban on their terms instead of using our full might to win. This ultimately let the Taliban hide out mixed into the civilian population, to nice their time until the US completely lost the will to fight.

[–] 0 pt

Why do you believe the US military is capable? Have they ever demonstrated that? They smashed up Iraq pretty well. But the US had the advantage of being on the offense against a beleaguered opponent. I personally do not have the confidence that the US could withstand a war against China or Russia.