Bullshit you lost your nerve due to dwindling public support every single time.

you're doing that thing again where you say something incorrect then try to squirm out with semantics.

we stormed Baghdad and toppled the regime, that we can do just fine. same in afghanistan. but once you go beyond that into occupation and rebuilding things get much harder.

public resolve has nothing to do with the challenges a modern military can face tactically from an insurgent force entrenched in civilians. the only way around it is war crimes.

i look forward to a fact deplete snarky reply.

And you created ISIS which is still a problem today. Great job.
You displaced the regime in Afghanistan you did not topple it. You viewed the government like a government when it was a religion and you failed as all attempts to take out a religion fail. And even before you abandoned Afghanistan the Taliban seized full control of the country. Great job again.

Public resolve has everything to do with it. You never even tried to do what was necessary either because you failed to recognize what was necessary or you realized that what was necessary was next level evil and either way the public wouldn't support you so you cut your losses and got out.

thank you for snarkily restating my point.

that being that first world militaries can defeat backwater insurgents they just need to use warcrimes to do it.

so your point is "the USA can beat people they just need to use nukes and bomb civilians heavily". thanks for the contribution as always.

If I just restated your point then why are you even talking?

There's no disputing that war crimes are necessary for total victory and I never stated or implied otherwise. I also never made any arguments against you based on your agreement with or disputing of this fact. I am not sure why you are manufacturing an argument out of nothing.

I, effectively though not specifically, stated that if a government decides your death is necessary at any cost, you are dead. It doesn't matter if you get a clan of 5 million people to defend your 20,000,000² km of land if the military is willing to burn every mm and the government lets them or tells them to it will be burned and everyone will be dead. This is the problem with the idea that gun ownership protects the people from government. Government has a lot bigger guns than the people and a lot better tools as well. I'm not against gun ownership but that argument is ridiculous. You're only safe from government as long as government follows the rules. The moment government decides not to follow the rules you aren't safe and no amount of firepower will change that.

"i stated that if someone wants to use nuclear weapons against you (even tho no one has for 80 years) that you stand no chance"

great contribution, you're doing well.

"if im just repeating you, why are you talking so i can repeat you"

another solid banger.



i know you are but what am i.

typical newby behavior when called out lol.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 31 2023 11:39am

Pot, meet kettle.

Perhaps if Nicolae Ceaușescu had cared a little bit more he wouldn't have ended up shot dead.

In the real world, it is important for rulers to possess at least a tentative mandate from those they rule. Governments that can't build durable coalitions collapse. Mass disobedience grinds the economy to a halt, soldiers defect, mistakes are made and then leaders end up dead.

You miss one MASSIVE key factor.
The military are also citizens, those people who are fighting for the country can be their brothers, sisters, mothers, uncles, fathers..
When a government is overthrown the military joining the citizens is often the reason.
Niger did it last week.

just go to work lazy shits, there is plenty of work for every able bodied person on this planet