So there is a possibility American military material will soon be used against the Chinese should they choose to be idiots and invade Afghanistan. Its going to be interesting to see how that plays out.

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:

The Air Force revised their tweet about 800 people on a C-17. Am I the only one who sees an issue with evacuating 600 people with only 165 of which are Americans?

Well, it's either evac the Afghans or let the Taliban murder every single one of them.

Many of those people are the locals who actively assisted US forces for the past 20 years. To leave them behind is to sign their death warrants.

All those left behind weapon systems will end up in CCP labs within six months Red Army will have the same shit.

Dereliction of duty.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:

The Air Force revised their tweet about 800 people on a C-17. Am I the only one who sees an issue with evacuating 600 people with only 165 of which are Americans?

Well, it's either evac the Afghans or let the Taliban murder every single one of them.

Many of those people are the locals who actively assisted US forces for the past 20 years. To leave them behind is to sign their death warrants.

Perhaps, but what of the American citizens on the ground in A-stan right now that this administration seems minimally interested in removing from the country? Where does the focus get applied? Though it might sound terrible, I'd advocate sacrificing every one of those local lives if that was the only way to get every American out. This is a cluster**** of immeasurable proportions at this point thanks to the utter incompetence of the current administration, but the focus must be turned to protecting and savings the Americans there. If the Afghans who assisted the US can be saved as well, all the better, but they should not factor into getting all the Americans out 'first'.

Whenever we have a demoncrat president we always ‘lose’ technology. It was missile technology to China for campaign cash under President pervert Clinton. Our RQ-170 drone was ‘lost’ under Obama and now this with President Potato.

All by design.

Joe Biden will win the Profiles in Courage award by the JFK Foundation this year, guaranteed. This will take the Pravda twist in 48-96 hours by the weekend the news media will move on and focus on Delta variant, something Trump said or January 6. The foreign press, Sky news, Al Jazerra not so much, but the Dems press corps will be non event soon.

Nope. There's no coming back from this for senile old Joe. We're not even close to how bad this is going to get.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Nope. There's no coming back from this for senile old Joe. We're not even close to how bad this is going to get.

In some ways Para I so hope that you are correct, but, a Harris White House is truly the Manchurin Candidate, that is what makes it nerve racking.

No, it would be a prostitute occupying the Oval Office and nothing more.

Point very well made, she is indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:

In some ways Para I so hope that you are correct, but, a Harris White House is truly the Manchurin Candidate, that is what makes it nerve racking.

It won't change a single bit the people actually calling the shots. Puppet Joe or whore Harris, same people.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...isons-fall-of-saigon

Kamala Harris plans Vietnam visit – just as Afghanistan draws comparisons to fall of Saigon

The timing probably couldn’t be worse for the Biden administration. On Friday, Vice President Kamala Harris is scheduled to embark on a trip across the Pacific that will include a stop in Vietnam.

The trip – which will be Harris’ second overseas venture since taking office – comes as the current crisis in Afghanistan has drawn many comparisons to the end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the 1970s.

This week’s scenes of crowds gathering at Kabul’s airport and U.S. military helicopters arriving to pick up passengers at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan’s capital revived grim memories of desperate Vietnamese people trying to board U.S. helicopters as they left the embassy in Saigon more than four decades ago.

The Vietnam War era was among the most divisive periods in American history, with the long conflict factoring into Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s decision not to seek re-election in 1968.

As of Monday, Harris had no plans to cancel her trip, The Washington Post reported.

That's karma, Kamala. More to come. You won't be able to suck dicks fast enough to get out of this jam. People are pissed off.

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:

The Air Force revised their tweet about 800 people on a C-17. Am I the only one who sees an issue with evacuating 600 people with only 165 of which are Americans?

I don't know for sure or not, I have no info either way, but maybe 165 Americans were all that had made it to the airport for evacuation at that time? From what I read in this thread, it sounds like if you weren't at the airport already, you weren't going to get there anytime soon, either because the airport was already surrounded and/or you were "sheltering in place" behind enemy lines. If that's the case, might as well make up the difference with locals who helped if you have the space. Hopefully a way can be found to get the rest of the Americans safely out ( preferably without paying billions in ransom).

On another note, what is with a certain group of people turning a bad situation into a disaster.... Carter handing Iran over to a bunch of nut jobs; Zippy the Pinhead and Biden throwing Iraq and Syria to ISIS; and now Slow Joe Biden fouling up an orderly withdrawal in Afghanistan and handing it over to the Taliban on a golden platter with billions in military equipment. It's almost as if they're NOT the smartest people in whatever room they walk into.

So we will throw money at the Taliban to allow safe passage of American citizens to the airport for evacuation? And we think they will be worried about their public image? Like they care about looking good to westerners?

The lesson of Afghanistan is that you cannot trust anyone, and whomever is your ally will surely screw you and become your enemy as soon as there is any advantage to it. So why would anyone ever trust the Taliban to keep their word?

The administration doesn't even know how many American citizens are outside the airport. Various people have made various different guesses when asked by the press, and no two are the same.

The Taliban could very well round them up and behead them in the streets to humiliate the U.S. even more.

What is Joe "Full-Carter" Biden going to do? Order 10's of thousands or troops back into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban? Carpetbomb or nuke them and kill millions of "innocent civilians"? Getting drawn back into a war he "decisively" would be poetic. So he'll do nothing, except say "bad Taliban".

As for the US military hardware except for the small arms, I sincerely hope they have some kind of tracking tag on them that will make them easy to target and destroy with airstrikes. Without maintenance and spare parts most of it will be non-functional in a short time.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

...that will make them easy to target and destroy with airstrikes...

I like that idea, but where will the planes/UAVs come from? Where's our nearest base, Oman?

Giving up Bagram air base was one of Joe's many bad decisions, but I'm sure he'll make ever stupider ones in upcoming weeks.

An opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal by a former Navy SEAL.*
=========================

The ‘Endless Wars’ Fallacy

By Dan Crenshaw

There are many options between nation building and giving up, and we had found a good one in Afghanistan before President Biden abandoned it.

Almost everyone agrees that what’s happening in Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster. There is no way to whitewash it, and few are trying. The scenes from Kabul speak for themselves, casting shame and embarrassment on the world’s greatest superpower. There is plenty of blame being passed around, including to the “neocons,” the generals and the Afghans themselves. But what got us here was the widespread belief that American foreign policy should be dictated by a simple slogan: “No more endless wars.” The current spokesman for that belief is President Biden.

The argument for bringing the troops home is an emotional one, arising from exhaustion with overseas conflict. Most people don’t understand the situation in Afghanistan, and that causes distrust and anger. Few deny we needed to take action after 9/11, but few understood what our strategy would be after we got there. Leaders failed to explain that simply leaving would allow the Taliban to re-emerge and again provide safe haven for terrorists. Americans felt stuck and became exhausted over the years with the vast sums of money spent and lives lost, seemingly in a futile attempt to build democracy.

With this growing impatience, the case for cutting our losses grew stronger. But it fails to acknowledge trade-offs—and this simple question: If we evacuate Afghanistan, what will happen? The “no more endless wars” crowd always refused to answer. They prefer to live in a dream world rather than face the reality that our enemies are ideologically opposed to Western civilization and will gladly stage another 9/11 if they have the opportunity and means.

They are at war with us whether or not we are at war with them. Leaving Afghanistan would inevitably create a terrorist safe haven.

That simple reality was never properly explained to the public. When Quinnipiac asked in a May survey, “Should we leave Afghanistan?” 62% of respondents said yes. But what if the question was framed more completely: “Should we leave Afghanistan even if it means an increased threat of terrorism to the homeland?”

The “no more endless wars” position has another blind spot: Its advocates are unable to distinguish between wasteful nation building and a small residual force that conducts occasional counterterror operations. As a result, when many Americans hear that there is a single soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, they interpret it to mean “nation building” and “world police.”

That’s wrong. There are a lot of foreign policy options between nation building and giving up. We found the proper balance in recent years—maintaining a small force that propped up the Afghan government while also giving us the capability to strike at Taliban and other terrorist networks as needed. When Echelon asked about the troop presence this way in July, more Americans, Republican and Democratic, supported a small military presence in Afghanistan than ending our presence entirely.

The U.S. presence in Afghanistan was meeting the original strategic goal of denying a safe haven for terrorists and preventing another 9/11. The 18 months before withdrawal saw no U.S. combat deaths. Does that really sound like “endless war” in any traditional sense? More important, does it sound better or worse than the current outcome?

Mr. Biden’s decision was reckless and unnecessary. Policy aside, there wasn’t even political pressure to take such thoughtless action. The facts on the ground didn’t warrant a hasty withdrawal, and intelligence predicted the Taliban would eventually take over. Even worse, this decision was made as the spring fighting season began, all but guaranteeing a Taliban offensive emboldened by the knowledge of an imminent U.S. withdrawal and a collapse of morale by our Afghan allies in uniform and in government.

America didn’t lose a war, or even end one. We gave up on a strategic national-security interest. We gave up on our Afghan allies, expecting them to stave off a ruthless insurgency without our crucial support, which came at minimal cost to us. This administration’s actions are heartless, its justifications nonsensical. The consequences are dire for innocent Afghans and for America’s prestige. Twenty years after 9/11, I pray they don’t become equally dire for Americans at home.

Mr. Crenshaw, a Republican, represents Texas’ Second Congressional District. He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 as a member of the U.S. Navy’s SEAL Team 3.

LINK

=================================
* Citing the author’s background in the introduction may seem like I don’t understand the “argument from authority” logical fallacy. No, I do know the difference between accepting someone’s opinion because of his status versus the facts and logic of an argument. Many people nevertheless think that SEALs not only swim in the water, but can walk on it without getting their feet wet, and therefore that knowledge might prompt them to pay more attention to what I consider to be an important message.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
So there is a possibility American military material will soon be used against the Chinese should they choose to be idiots and invade Afghanistan. Its going to be interesting to see how that plays out.

Not likely. I have read unsubstantiated claims that China is providing funding to the Taliban in exchange for mineral rights in Afghanistan. Again - I am not posting the source because it is not one I generally trust, but the logic is there given China's growing presence in parts of the Middle East.