Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 2397 comments are related to the topic:
AFGHANISTAN

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 6 of 60  •  Previous | 1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 60 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 2,397
By:
lfc1971
When: 15 Aug 21 19:37
You remove the Taliban from the country , from
every aspect of the country and if they try their return you eliminate them
They can keep trying as long as they like , we don’t leave
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 19:39
trump envisioned a peace deal and coalition government not taliban literally taking over
By:
lfc1971
When: 15 Aug 21 19:39
That , should be the policy
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 19:39
they cross the border to Pak or  live in the mountains (terrain is a prob) or blend into civilian life lfc - not like fighting uniformed soldiers
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 19:40
"blowing the f*** out of taliban strongholds"

yes, and drone strikes, and stopping the US withdrawal

Trump took descisive action in Syria and Iraq
By:
lfc1971
When: 15 Aug 21 19:40
That’s fine let them live there . If they come out of the mountains make sure they don’t return
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 19:41
and significant amounts of their number change with the breeze incidentally depending on who's winning...
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 19:41
the taliban are a regular army and can be defeated as happened in 2001
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 19:42
"this is not Saigon."

lol
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 19:43
well they clearly weren't defeated...or are you saying that US/Nato troops should just remain indefinitely ?
By:
lfc1971
When: 15 Aug 21 19:44
Why not ? There is no reason why we shouldn’t stay for ever if that’s what it takes
By:
lfc1971
When: 15 Aug 21 19:46
We stay there, and by the way we use the proceeds of the oil and the Afghan industry and jobs etc for their benefit and ours
It can and should be a win win situation
By:
A_T
When: 15 Aug 21 19:46
which other countries should we invade because we don't like who is in control?
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 19:46
costs a lot...and whilst I'm not against it for short term in principle ...occupying peace keepers indefinitely feels a challenge...would imagine G has some views on that closer to home...
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 19:47
they were turned from a national government and proepr army into a few guerillas hiding in the mounatins

20 years of failed of nation building allowed them to return

nobody messes with trump, they have no idea what he's going to do
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 19:48
keep a small force of ground troops and special forces, and continue to bomb them indefintely
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 19:48
why he didn't make sure the takeover environment was more developed ?
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 19:48
which other countries should we invade because we don't like who is in control?

scotland
By:
lfc1971
When: 15 Aug 21 19:49
We’ve never left certain parts of the world , that’s how it works
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 19:49
a lot has happened since he signed the deal

trump had zero foreign policy failures in office
By:
Charlie
When: 15 Aug 21 19:49
You will not defeat the Taliban. Nobody can. You can give them a bloody nose for a while and then they come back.

This is quite sad:
https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2019/12/12/the-taliban-have-been-defeated-america-didnt-do-it/

and oh so wrong.
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 19:51
I think alienating every Nato country is a bit of a failure ...cosying up to North Korea and Naughty Poots is not textbook success either...
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 19:55
he wanted NATO to increase spending

he got closer to a deal in Korea than anyone else has

has done nothing but piss Putin off (nordsteam, crimea, ukraine, syria, sanctions)
By:
A_T
When: 15 Aug 21 19:56
trump had zero foreign policy failures in office

making a deal with the Taliban without involving the Afghan government - how's that working out?
By:
Slicer
When: 15 Aug 21 19:57
Al Jazeerah Freeview 236 showing exclusive pictures of Talib comanders inside Presidential Palace right now.
By:
Slicer
When: 15 Aug 21 19:58
sorry Channel 235
By:
A_T
When: 15 Aug 21 20:01
I'd watch but I don't want to miss GB News
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 20:01
"making a deal with the Taliban without involving the Afghan government - how's that working out? "

guess we'll never know whether it could have worked

once joe was left to implement it was always going to be a disaster

democrats wee the ones who abandoned South Vietnam too by teh way

spinless wimps
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 20:02
he wanted NATO to increase spending  - yep he got that right in principle but was already losing any credibility with Western governance, method of diplomacy and the fact that he was already looking like a moron by just lying consistently...

he got closer to a deal in Korea than anyone else has    difficult to assess that...he'd ceryainly tell you he did because initially as with his Poots relationship he liked the big guy in charge stuff...

has done nothing but piss Putin off (nordsteam, crimea, ukraine, syria, sanctions) - you have to decide which bits to credit to him or the defence department I'd imagine but Syria the west has largely abandoned and is crimea viewed as a success ?
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 20:03
Trump did nothing to help Putin
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 20:04
you think Trump with his ego would sit back and let the taliban take Kabul?
By:
Slicer
When: 15 Aug 21 20:04
I'm alternating between watching Taliban Terrors v Afghan Aholes & Marseille v Bordeaux. Already won my bet on Talib Terrors so leaning towards the other game.
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 20:06
"Syria the west has largely abandoned "

Trump defeated ISIS, with some help from France, Britain and the Kurds
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 20:07
I suspect he'd have lobbied for a very strong action ...whether the defense dept would have tried to implement what he wanted I'm not sure...

I'm still interested what your view is on indefinite occupation..
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 20:08
a small presence is all that's needed, with airstrikes
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 20:08
Russia have been the bigger player militarily in Syria surely in recent years
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 20:12
no the US-French-British operation was much bigger

and a lot of the Russian operations were not against ISIS but other enemies of Assad
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 20:13
the US France and Britain were bombing the bejaysus out of ISIS day and night for years
By:
Giuseppe
When: 15 Aug 21 20:15
Russia was in the west of Syria  helping Assad

US etc were in the north east helpling the Kurds against ISIS

it was their airstrikes that enabled the Kurds to take Raqqa

they were helping the Iraqis to take Mosul too

France really stepped up its operations after the bataclan
By:
brentford
When: 15 Aug 21 20:17
US gov were targeting the Russian backed regime during Trump's time in office due to chemical weapons issues,
Page 6 of 60  •  Previous | 1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 60 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com