Afghanistan merged

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Aug 16, 2012
3,016
1,377
743
58
I was asking the question wondering if we (and our allies) have military aircraft prepped and ready to destroy anything that possibly leaves their airspace. How do we know it's not a "threat"?
I know, I was just piggy-backing a comment about left-behind armament to post something else I had read about equipment being left behind.

But to your question, our strong allies in the region are limited to several small countries along the west coast of the Persian Gulf and India. The F-16 only has a combat range of a little more than 300 miles so getting anywhere that it could do significant damage to US allies is low. It does have a ferrying range of 2600 miles but that is without any armament. Also, I guarantee you that the second one leaves Afghanistan airspace, the 5th Fleet in the Gulf is all over it with planes scrambled and missiles readied. The plane would have to travel completely across hostile countries to get into ally airspace and the second it does....toast. Right now, American-branded and EU commercial flights cannot fly over Iran. Pakistan airspace is currently open but with the tenuous India/Pakistan relationship, again, it would take a couple seconds for India's AF to drop a rogue F-16 that has been tracked across Pakistan.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,643
3,547
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
I'm not sure that dementia would be grounds for removal but other cognitive issues would not. There is an entire area of medicine dealing with the subject of capacity. If he did not have the capacity to serve, it wouldn't matter what the reason is, he shouldn't serve.
Thanks for the response. My experience is very limited. Only knew 3 close people diagnosed with it. Biden doesn’t have the dementia that I know of. All 3 could never remember the beginning of their sentence and would finish them with a complete different thought.

The attempt to create the ‘boy’ controversy with him, obviously shows him saying boy but because he was trying to express two thoughts simultaneously. He was saying “boy” as in “Boy, it’s going to be a great day!” Not the other derogatory ‘boy’. But because he stated the words in the wrong order, a fabrication was born. There will be a larger chorus calling for him to step down unless someone can explain that what we’re witnessing, isn’t cognitive problems. Hoping it’s just a stammering block, the kind that make older people search for the perfect word while stuttering.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,643
3,547
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
The left behind military equipment reminds me of the old movie Deal of the Century, about arms dealers. Some 3rd world rival tribes came into oil money so one of them bought a F-14 jet fighter. Of course the other tribe then had to have one. Neither knew how to fly them so they had to roll them down the hill into each other.
Great flick!
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,040
15,103
1,743

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,643
3,547
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
With China going and taking over Bagram. There is more there than some thought.
There’s a lot there. A lot worth way more than lithium. Rhodium is trading at $15,000 an ounce. Now you know why partly why we were there so long. The lithium is a big deal. More so to China than us. But that rhodium is a bigger deal.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com...ghanistan-is-sitting-on-a-gold-mine-literally

We advertised to the world all of this more than a decade ago.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/37678403

If we didn’t take it and we got out of Chinas way and on their timeline, then you gotta know it must’ve been sweet deal for us to leave intact infrastructure. Either that or China already owns us. Your pick.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,629
18,007
1,743
There’s a lot there. A lot worth way more than lithium. Rhodium is trading at $15,000 an ounce. Now you know why partly why we were there so long. The lithium is a big deal. More so to China than us. But that rhodium is a bigger deal.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com...ghanistan-is-sitting-on-a-gold-mine-literally

We advertised to the world all of this more than a decade ago.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/37678403

If we didn’t take it and we got out of Chinas way and on their timeline, then you gotta know it must’ve been sweet deal for us to leave intact infrastructure. Either that or China already owns us. Your pick.
Begs the question, why does Biden's foreign policy favor other nations more than it does the US?
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,634
932
1,743
It's not popular with me. When Biden first announced we were leaving I said "finally something he's doing I agree with". But to paraphrase Obama, I underestimated how bad he could f things up.

If China wants Afghanistan, let them have it.
So I've been thinking about this lately, and here is a thought. How about the next country we decide to invade and occupy, we make a 75 year commitment? We're going on 75 years in Germany and Japan now, and those places seemed to have worked out pretty well. Then you're talking about a full generation of people being raised in whatever environment we decide to foster. It also IMO would stop us from doing it in all but the most necessary circumstances. Of course that means that congress needs to retake the power to declare war and not cede that responsibility to the executive.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,643
3,547
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
So I've been thinking about this lately, and here is a thought. How about the next country we decide to invade and occupy, we make a 75 year commitment? We're going on 75 years in Germany and Japan now, and those places seemed to have worked out pretty well. Then you're talking about a full generation of people being raised in whatever environment we decide to foster. It also IMO would stop us from doing it in all but the most necessary circumstances. Of course that means that congress needs to retake the power to declare war and not cede that responsibility to the executive.
McCain said we’d be there a 100 years. The media threw one the biggest fits in history over that. And although you and I knew what he meant ( like Germany and Japan ) that comment ended his campaign.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,040
15,103
1,743
So I've been thinking about this lately, and here is a thought. How about the next country we decide to invade and occupy, we make a 75 year commitment? We're going on 75 years in Germany and Japan now, and those places seemed to have worked out pretty well. Then you're talking about a full generation of people being raised in whatever environment we decide to foster. It also IMO would stop us from doing it in all but the most necessary circumstances. Of course that means that congress needs to retake the power to declare war and not cede that responsibility to the executive.
I'm going the other direction on this one. We beat up Japan and Germany in the Big one then kissed and made up, helping to take them down our economic path. Ever since then we think we can do it again.

Nation building rarely works. We're seen, by the world and uneducated locals, as occupiers which builds resentment.

As caveman as this sounds I prefer a 75 day commitment. If someone strikes us, we strike back for 75 days leaving big craters behind. Let them sift through the ashes and decide if they want to do it again.

I don't want to Nation build. I don't want a virtuous, woke military. I want the terrorists to see us as someone best avoided.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,643
3,547
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
15,675
5,686
1,743
Katy, TX
I'm going the other direction on this one. We beat up Japan and Germany in the Big one then kissed and made up, helping to take them down our economic path. Ever since then we think we can do it again.

Nation building rarely works. We're seen, by the world and uneducated locals, as occupiers which builds resentment.

As caveman as this sounds I prefer a 75 day commitment. If someone strikes us, we strike back for 75 days leaving big craters behind. Let them sift through the ashes and decide if they want to do it again.

I don't want to Nation build. I don't want a virtuous, woke military. I want the terrorists to see us as someone best avoided.
We haven’t committed to total war since WW2, we completely devastated those countries and have tried to avoid doing that ever since. Approx 1 out of 10 Germans died in the war, the cost was higher for the Allies with the Soviets losing 1 out 4 and the Chinese 1 out of 5. Civilian deaths totaled around 55 million.
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,634
932
1,743
I'm going the other direction on this one. We beat up Japan and Germany in the Big one then kissed and made up, helping to take them down our economic path. Ever since then we think we can do it again.

Nation building rarely works. We're seen, by the world and uneducated locals, as occupiers which builds resentment.

As caveman as this sounds I prefer a 75 day commitment. If someone strikes us, we strike back for 75 days leaving big craters behind. Let them sift through the ashes and decide if they want to do it again.

I don't want to Nation build. I don't want a virtuous, woke military. I want the terrorists to see us as someone best avoided.
Well, my definition of occupy would be anything greater than say, your 75 days. If we have troops in country more than that, it needs to be a full commitment. So IMO that would lead to a lot more engagements like you'd like to see as opposed to what we've been involved in.