So you agree with my summary that it will be a thorn. One that will be swiftly forgotten once we are no longer standing on it. The US has a monopoly on violence. I’m not saying it’s justified. I’m stating that it’s wise to not pick fights far above your ability to punch.
I don’t think your definition of lose and the American definition of lose quite align. The American objective is to inflict violence until the annoyance stops. Once the annoyance stops we have won and we leave. Long-Term stability is irrelevant. The cost in human life is irrelevant.
The only relevance is whether or not the American public wants to see more violence doled out.
Oh yes. Let’s all just capitulate to America’s interests. Resistance is futile so we should all just accept American hegemony and their psychotic neoliberal doctrine. Gtfo
Hey you do you man. I’m just telling you it’s probably not going to be very fun to reside in a a place that has pissed off the military industrial complex. I’m not saying it’s proper correct, morally justified or righteous. I’m just stating violence is the language that will be spoken.
I don’t think your definition of lose and the American definition of lose quite align
Lol.
« We didn’t lose in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc actually, we decided to leave because we were bored of this stupid war already, but we would have definitely won if we decided to stay trust me bro »
Literal US defense department cope.
Once the annoyance stops we have won and we leave.
Ha yes, the US totally got what they wanted in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Etc. And that’s why they left.
I don’t know about your definition of winning but the US coalition forces lost roughly 4,000 people during the Afghan conflict. We eradicated 70,000 Afghans in direct conflict. There were an additional 53000 insurgents that we killed. that’s not counting the civilian infrastructure and civilians. One hell of a prioric victory for the Afghans wouldn’t you say?.
Last time I counted when the losses are 4000 versus 120,000 we would determine the side that lost 4,000 as the winner.
So you agree with my summary that it will be a thorn. One that will be swiftly forgotten once we are no longer standing on it. The US has a monopoly on violence. I’m not saying it’s justified. I’m stating that it’s wise to not pick fights far above your ability to punch.
One you will still lose to.
I don’t think your definition of lose and the American definition of lose quite align. The American objective is to inflict violence until the annoyance stops. Once the annoyance stops we have won and we leave. Long-Term stability is irrelevant. The cost in human life is irrelevant.
The only relevance is whether or not the American public wants to see more violence doled out.
Oh yes. Let’s all just capitulate to America’s interests. Resistance is futile so we should all just accept American hegemony and their psychotic neoliberal doctrine. Gtfo
Hey you do you man. I’m just telling you it’s probably not going to be very fun to reside in a a place that has pissed off the military industrial complex. I’m not saying it’s proper correct, morally justified or righteous. I’m just stating violence is the language that will be spoken.
Lol.
« We didn’t lose in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc actually, we decided to leave because we were bored of this stupid war already, but we would have definitely won if we decided to stay trust me bro »
Literal US defense department cope.
Ha yes, the US totally got what they wanted in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Etc. And that’s why they left.
deleted by creator
I don’t know about your definition of winning but the US coalition forces lost roughly 4,000 people during the Afghan conflict. We eradicated 70,000 Afghans in direct conflict. There were an additional 53000 insurgents that we killed. that’s not counting the civilian infrastructure and civilians. One hell of a prioric victory for the Afghans wouldn’t you say?.
Last time I counted when the losses are 4000 versus 120,000 we would determine the side that lost 4,000 as the winner.