Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by SuperSonic, Aug 25, 2019.
What do you think? Things seemed to have calmed down between them lately.
I don't think Trump is going anywhere. He's not in good enough shape to invade a foreign country. I mean when your only form of physical fitness is golf........
He needs to at least do more cardio first. Maybe a couple HIIT classes. Maybe get a kettle bell and do some cleans and Turkish getups. Then maybe a firearms course or some judo.
Like he's not a small man, so he could maybe physically intimidate a few foreign soldiers into not messing with him, but if he tried to take on the entire Iranian army, I just really don't think he'd last long enough to make a significant dent in their forces.
I actually don’t think he will because he already said Iraq was a disaster. What he is doing with sanctions and tariffs I think is the smart move.
When is the last time America has won a war?
No they won't.
Since 1945, in terms of victory in a major war, the United States is one for five. The Gulf War in 1991 is the only success story.
According to the quote above Losses are Iraq war 2, Afghanistan,Vietnam and Korea because the objectives were not achieved.
I don’t actually know specifically why iraq 2 and Afghanistan are losses so if someone has more info that would be great.
It depends on how you define "won". We've dethroned the controlling party in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have our bases in both. Are there still terrorists? Sure. There are still neo-nazis in Germany.
True. I think you are right the US did achieve what it set out to but I think the aftermath and with so many US soldiers killed and civilians because of social breakdown the displacement of civilians and the creation of more enemies and terrorists because hearts and minds were lost - I think that is why it is considered a failure. (I did look some of this up after my previous post. )
It all depends on knowing what the US objectives were.
The the thing trumps trying to invade is a McDonald’s lmao
Maybe Putin’s butt whole
Don’t forget to vote in the poll please
You know you want a piece of this macho man
Did someone just ask who WON a war?
Ask any soldier who's been to war. There is no winner, there is only the side who dies less
Israel totally won a war once. But yeah, you're basically right.
But most wars aren’t fighting just for fightings sake they have clear objectives it’s not who can kill the most people otherwise nukes would be used all the time.
You could say the winner is the one that gained the most in terms of land, material, or influence in the region and while losing the least men. So you are right the casualty rate is a huge factor in whether the war is a success or failure.
The win is gaining the most while losing the least. Kind of like profit and loss.
My point was the fact that people had to die for someone else's agenda.
I am not an anti war person. Im just saying that when it comes to war there is no real winner, simply because of the fact that a war had to be fought in the first place. Yes there is typically a "winner" and a "loser" as with nearly everything else in life. But the fact that good men and women had to die makes all sides losers.
Oh so you think EVERYONE should get a trophy! Typical snowflake!
This is true I'm a lot of cases. But where I'm from, most wars seem necessary to most people, and most of those feel some sort of need to participate.
I actually agree that War is a necessity in some situations. The idea that violence doesn't solve anything is horse shit. Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is through violence.
But solving a problem doesn't mean that someone won and someone lost is all I am saying.
If war could be fought like a giant game of paintball or lasertag, with some hand to hand combat mixed in, that'd be great.
On the other hand I'm a bit conflicted because I absolutely think the world could afford to lose a couple Billion people.
@op: I don't think so. But it seems reasonably likely that he (or, more specifically, Kushner as his agent) will facilitate a Saudi-UAE-Israeli coalition against Iran. All three view Iran as their chief regional enemy, and have been able ignore previous Arab-Israeli issues between them on that common ground. However, Russia's support for Iran has kept things at bay for the most part. None of them can risk the ire of Russia. If the US could bargain something with Russia to get them to withdraw support - say, dropping sanctions with respect to Ukraine, or nuclear technology sales to Saudi Arabia (just spitballing here, we all know those are both crazy ideas that will never happen) - then the door is open.
Every war has losers, but I think most of them have winners too. Violence is shitty, but when someone wants you dead, it makes a lot more sense to violence their existence away from this planet.
You also have to remember that this is what humans have been doing since the dawn of history (and quite a while before that) and that we can consider ourselves lucky to be on the right side of the world during its most peaceful era ever. And this is coming from an Israeli.
Nothing you are saying I disagree with.
I'm just say from a moral standpoint I guess. War has no winners as losers simply due to the fact that people had to die.
Idiologically or strategically yes there are winners and losers. As one side almost always achieves its goal so they "won". But that's not what I'm talking about.
Philosophically, war is a shitty invention. But it can also be necessary and people often feel obliged to participate.
No. They are a different beast entirely from what you hear on tv.