Taliban Winning the WAR ? Is it True ?

[GasMask]

Was just listening to the news just this second and everyone in Afghan and Pakistan think the Taliban are winning the war ? bad thing is what if we pull out our forces ? they will grow in size and money and eventually build nukes ? my theory is simple we are weak how can some desert rugs defeat us ? I actually favour the Taliban somehow they are just the force to be reckoned with but in my imagination they are clever to.

The UK alone has lost 20 soldiers in the last month I think add all other NATO / USA and Other Factions totals ?


Whats your Suggestion opinion ?

[Haldred]

Awesome, if the Taliban get nukes we can finally nuke some one! The American dream!
What kind of nukes are the Taliban going to get you reckon?
This kind?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or maybe, this one?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Awesome, if the Taliban get nukes we can finally nuke some one! The American dream!
What kind of nukes are the Taliban going to get you reckon?
This kind?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or maybe, this one?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Where are they going to get nukes from?

[Haldred]

Where are they going to get nukes from?

From Here, because I assume the Taliban wouldn't have the resources in a million years for nuclear weapons.

[Emperador Carlos]

From Here, because I assume the Taliban wouldn't have the resources in a million years for nuclear weapons.

You're forgetting Iran, who routinely supplies terrorist groups with weaponry. Hell, the Arab-Israeli conflict is essentially a proxy war between Israel and Iran...

Well, history has shown that you can lose most of the major, pitched battles but still win the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

As long as the Taliban/ Al Queda are throwing themselves at coalition troops, ISAF soldiers will die. As long as ISAF soldiers die without any real signs of progress, public support for the war will erode, followed by an erosion of soldiers' confidence in their mission and leadership. If things get that bad in Afghanistan, a Vietnam-style pull out will probably occur. If that happens, the Taliban effectively won, no matter how many battles they lost.

What the coalition forces need is a Patton-style general who will always press the attack, blow up, kill people, and not worry about the political ramifications.

When will the military learn that prolonged war results in low confidence and low support? When will they learn that all the Taliban have to do is wait us out?

We need to attack and kill every last one of them.

Why is everything endlessly compared to Vietnam, particularly by Democrats (Not accusing you of being one)?

If they could go back in time, they'd Yell "It's gonna be another Vietnam!" at the Peloponnesian War...

[Haldred]

You're forgetting Iran, who routinely supplies terrorist groups with weaponry. Hell, the Arab-Israeli conflict is essentially a proxy war between Israel and Iran...





Why is everything endlessly compared to Vietnam, particularly by Democrats (Not accusing you of being one)?

If they could go back in time, they'd Yell "It's gonna be another Vietnam!" at the Peloponnesian War...

You have money Mr. Republican, give some to me please.

[Mr. Scott]

Where are they going to get nukes from?

IDK but if the taliban gets strong enough they could move deeper into pakistan and further destabilize the country.

[Ältester der Motten]

Where are they going to get nukes from?

Black market. Except, they never bothered to it seems.



Hmmm.

[duda]

Where are they going to get nukes from?

americans or russians. just like all their weapons

[KayRim]

americans or russians. just like all their weapons

Haha, are you joking? We're talking about a nuclear weapon, not a Kalashnikov. What, do you think the United States and Russia hand out nukes like candy?

[Pious Agnost]

americans or russians. just like all their weapons

Yeah, they love giving people who carry out terrorist strikes on them nuclear weapons.

[The Noble Lord]

I've said it before in here and in the Mudpit. The war in Afghanistan would go on as long as the foreign troops are still there. It is not Iraq or any other place, it's Afghanistan and there will always be a resistance to the armed foreign presence which is seen only as occupying force propping up the inefficient and corrupt puppet government. However nice and genuine intentions of the International community are to liberate Afghanistan of terrorism and to help Afghans build their country, the methods that are being used and am talking about large numbers of troops and increasing that number actually instead of decreasing it, these methods are totally counter-productive and it would only create more dissatisfaction and resentment which in turn would result in much stronger and vibrant insurgency and Afghanistan falling into chaos!

[GasMask]

Uh right... im just saying they look like their winning...

As soon as we leave ....

[administrator of yackady]

We need a surge, a big surge
Time to call on all the nations in NATO

[Treize]

We need a surge, a big surge
Time to call on all the nations in NATO

But why would we care for Afghanistan.

Taliban or Karzai, big difference...

[mrmouth]

It's entirely subjective. But if simply existing, means you are winning, then I guess they are winning.

Somewhere along the line though, I think you have to win a fight. Especially when you initiate the majority of them. And with those large assaults on bases, where you have 40 US Army against 200-300 assorted turds...you really gotta win those.

I often wonder what the mentality must be like in any of these roaming groups of Taliban, that have done nothing but lost. Just complete denial. I had a bad mushroom trip like that, where the group of us all knew that it turned bad, but we continued on with these fake, manufactured smiles and laughter. While in reality, all I wanted to do was punch people, and I knew they wanted to do the same. It was bad. It is still bad to think about.

I mean, You attack a base on your terms, where you have a huge advantage, and you leave 100 of your dead 'brothers' behind for us to bury in a mass grave. And then the fake victory tour of a base that we abandon. There must be this underlying feeling of ineptitude that gets pushed really deep inside, and only adds to the delusion.

They suck.

[LegionnaireX]

It's entirely subjective. But if simply existing, means you are winning, then I guess they are winning.

Somewhere along the line though, I think you have to win a fight. Especially when you initiate the majority of them. And with those large assaults on bases, where you have 40 US Army against 200-300 assorted turds...you really gotta win those.

I often wonder what the mentality must be like in any of these roaming groups of Taliban, that have done nothing but lost. Just complete denial. I had a bad mushroom trip like that, where the group of us all knew that it turned bad, but we continued on with these fake, manufactured smiles and laughter. While in reality, all I wanted to do was punch people, and I knew they wanted to do the same. It was bad. It is still bad to think about.

I mean, You attack a base on your terms, where you have a huge advantage, and you leave 100 of your dead 'brothers' behind for us to bury in a mass grave. And then the fake victory tour of a base that we abandon. There must be this underlying feeling of ineptitude that gets pushed really deep inside, and only adds to the delusion.

They suck.

Well, history has shown that you can lose most of the major, pitched battles but still win the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

As long as the Taliban/ Al Queda are throwing themselves at coalition troops, ISAF soldiers will die. As long as ISAF soldiers die without any real signs of progress, public support for the war will erode, followed by an erosion of soldiers' confidence in their mission and leadership. If things get that bad in Afghanistan, a Vietnam-style pull out will probably occur. If that happens, the Taliban effectively won, no matter how many battles they lost.

What the coalition forces need is a Patton-style general who will always press the attack, blow up, kill people, and not worry about the political ramifications.

When will the military learn that prolonged war results in low confidence and low support? When will they learn that all the Taliban have to do is wait us out?

We need to attack and kill every last one of them.

[MonkeyD]

The ultimate goal of a war is to destroy the enemys willingness to fight. Unless the Coalition convinces these Muslim fanatics to not want to contiune shooting or blowing themselves up your not winning anything for a loooooong time. This is a nightmare senario for Sun Tzu.

[Stark of Winterfell]

What the coalition forces need is a Patton-style general who will always press the attack, blow up, kill people, and not worry about the political ramifications.

No, that's what we don't need, unless we want a war like the one the Soviets fought. The Soviets just blew up cities without caring about the consequences, and as a result faced an insurgency 125,000 strong within a year. The US is facing one nowhere near as large after 10 years, because we actually try to avoid civilian casualties and apologize when we do. You don't win the war by strengthening your enemy.

[LegionnaireX]

No, that's what we don't need, unless we want a war like the one the Soviets fought. The Soviets just blew up cities without caring about the consequences, and as a result faced an insurgency 125,000 strong within a year. The US is facing one nowhere near as large after 10 years, because we actually try to avoid civilian casualties and apologize when we do. You don't win the war by strengthening your enemy.

I'm not condoning civilian casualties. Since the McChrystal firing it has become apparent that the current rules of engagement are putting American soldiers at unnecessary risk, allowing the terrorists to get away, and otherwise hendering our ability to fight this war.

Civilian deaths are an unfortunate and terrible side effect of war, but in Afghanistan death and suffering have been the norm for the the last 30 years. Your right in that we must not alienate the population, but we must stay on the offensive. We cannot be to timid about the use of force. The reason we lost in Vietnam was because we didn't try to win. There was no battle plan, no offensive campaign.