• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A-10's to Afghan

That's patently false. We're still in Afganistan to ensure that heroin is flooding the American market to help perpetuate the unnecessary War on Drugs. We're literally at war to help foment a different war. You can't make this **** up...


View attachment 67227517

View attachment 67227518
The Taliban controlled Afghanistan from 1995 to 2001. The drop in production didnt occur because the Taliban was in control...it occurred because the Taliban was getting its ass kicked. Even today, its not the Warlords or the government that are running the fields but independent farmers working with (voluntarily or under the threat of death) terror groups.
 
That's patently false. We're still in Afganistan to ensure that heroin is flooding the American market to help perpetuate the unnecessary War on Drugs. We're literally at war to help foment a different war. You can't make this **** up...


View attachment 67227517

View attachment 67227518
That is literally one of the most completely wrong things I have read in quite awhile. Well done.
 
Isn't this cute, another thread where folks can celebrate the US's continued war crimes against the Afghan people.
 
And the Pentagon is IIRC reducing the fleet to 87 or so. New wings for the A10. Ad are they considering an A10 ungraded/new plane? It is one nasty piece of kit.

On a couple of different occasions, the Air Force wanted to replace the A-10 with the F-16. But, the F-16 is too fast for close air support.
 
Isn't this cute, another thread where folks can celebrate the US's continued war crimes against the Afghan people.

If you mean killing terrorists, you bet.
 
Nonsense, the war on drugs is simply far to profitable to "win". Try as you may, you will never control (suppress?) demand by attempting to control (suppress?) only supply. The strategy of leave the user (demander) alone and pursue the dealer (supplier) is always doomed to failure.

Just like illegal immigration. No wall will stop them as long as there are jobs to be had. Nothing is being done about the "demanders" of illegal labor.
 
Just like illegal immigration. No wall will stop them as long as there are jobs to be had. Nothing is being done about the "demanders" of illegal labor.

That is a good point yet the demorats insist on DACA/DAPA amnesty which not only increases that demand it encourages bringing along minor children to serve as pseudo anchor babies.
 
That is a good point yet the demorats insist on DACA/DAPA amnesty which not only increases that demand it encourages bringing along minor children to serve as pseudo anchor babies.

The demand for labor is what causes illegal immigration and keeping them in the shadows keeps their wages down for employers. You obviously want to make sure that cheap labor is always available. That is what Trump is really doing. Citizens are no longer exploited and their wage advantage is lost.
 
If you mean killing terrorists, you bet.

You can stay in the USA for that. The US is the biggest terrorist group/"nation" on the planet, whose actions vastly outnumber the sum total of all other terrorist actions, most of which are US planned, funded, supported.

Backyard terrorism
George Monbiot George Monbiot
The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it
@GeorgeMonbiot
Tue 30 Oct 2001 02.11 GMT


"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.


For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government.

Until January this year, Whisc was called the "School of the Americas", or SOA. Since 1946, SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch show, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/30/afghanistan.terrorism19
 
If you mean killing terrorists, you bet.

The terrorists are the people from the country that illegally invaded Afghanistan. That is the ultimate war crime, which makes Bush, Cheney et al the equivalent of the worst of the worst WWII war criminals.

This was all done on the basis of lies, a USA false flag event. There is no actual evidence for the "Arab hijackers" and there is much evidence, total impossibilities that make the US government conspiracy theory a total fable, something that could not have happened as the lies said.

"Hijackers" could not have melted/vaporized steel at WTC because jet fuel/office furnishings, burning at their most efficient are 1000 degrees F short of steel's melting point and some 3,500 F short of temperatures needed to vaporize steel.

FEMA found and described this molten/vaporized steel.

Case closed. NO ARAB HIJACKERS!
 
The terrorists are the people from the country that illegally invaded Afghanistan. That is the ultimate war crime, which makes Bush, Cheney et al the equivalent of the worst of the worst WWII war criminals.

This was all done on the basis of lies, a USA false flag event. There is no actual evidence for the "Arab hijackers" and there is much evidence, total impossibilities that make the US government conspiracy theory a total fable, something that could not have happened as the lies said.

"Hijackers" could not have melted/vaporized steel at WTC because jet fuel/office furnishings, burning at their most efficient are 1000 degrees F short of steel's melting point and some 3,500 F short of temperatures needed to vaporize steel.

FEMA found and described this molten/vaporized steel.

Case closed. NO ARAB HIJACKERS!

The bolded is a lie. Pure and simple.

Have you read the FBI report yet? The 9/11 Commission Report? ASCE's Pentagon Report? The NIST Report?
 
What is the mission or missions of the US-led Coalition in Afghanistan? If it is just a giant search and destroy mission then A-10 Warthogs are a useful tool to destroy anyone who forcefully opposes the Central Government and its Western Allies. If however there is a mission to win the hearts and minds of a majority of Afghans then one should consider that Afghans, like many other people in the Middle East and points east view A-10's, AH-64 Apaches and large armed UAV's as symbols of death and of US oppression. If for every insurgent you kill you alienate four or five more moderate Afghans from compliance with Kabul and by extension the US-led Coalition, then you are setting yourselves up for failure in the long term. So what is the mission in Afghanistan and do such aircraft best serve the successful completion of that mission?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
What is the mission or missions of the US-led Coalition in Afghanistan? If it is just a giant search and destroy mission then A-10 Warthogs are a useful tool to destroy anyone who forcefully opposes the Central Government and its Western Allies. If however there is a mission to win the hearts and minds of a majority of Afghans then one should consider that Afghans, like many other people in the Middle East and points east view A-10's, AH-64 Apaches and large armed UAV's as symbols of death and of US oppression. If for every insurgent you kill you alienate four or five more moderate Afghans from compliance with Kabul and by extension the US-led Coalition, then you are setting yourselves up for failure in the long term. So what is the mission in Afghanistan and do such aircraft best serve the successful completion of that mission?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Please ER, you're being too damn rational!!! Tone it down. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom