5 ms·
The US played a pivotal role in saving our asses over in Europe, and we are eternally grateful, but ever since, the US has been bad at war. It's not the firepow
by BasDirks 5y ago
The US played a pivotal role in saving our asses over in Europe, and we are eternally grateful, but ever since, the US has been bad at war. It's not the firepower, it's not the soldiers, and it's not the organization. These are top notch. It's the **ing politicians dragging young men and women into wars not worth fighting.
- rualca 5y agoI wholeheartedly agree, and the effect this has on the perceived military capability of the US in particular and NATO in general can't possibly be downplayed.
- koonsolo 5y agoThe Taliban is absolute horrible. US tried to do a good thing here. For me this is a failure of the Afghan people who are not willing to fight for their rights, especially the rights of their wives, sisters and daughters. At least US tried to make a difference. EU is very passive in that sense (I'm from EU).
- BasDirks 5y agoA failure of the Afghan people! Hahaha, OK. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And ah, okay, the war in Afghanistan was to liberate women? Meanwhile the US is in bed with the Saudi's.
- hintymad 5y agoExactly. Afghanistan people want Taliban, yet we're telling them no no no, you want our democracy. The US was "a nation of hypocrites", and still is.
- kazen44 5y agosome people in afghanistan want the taliban yes, the mainy problem in afghanistan is the fact that not many people feel a common sense of being an afghani. The country is extremely decentralised and rural. Most people only look at their villages and community, not at the bigger picture.
- kingofpandora 5y agoHow would you like a foreign power invading and running your country? You better believe a large part of the Taliban are fighting not out of religious conviction but essentially (Pashtun) nationalism.
- koonsolo 5y agoUS did it during WW2, and it seemed to work out fine. Only thing is that when they left, we made sure the Nazi's didn't come back. Right now they were training Afghans to have their own military, but it's all so corrupt that it is just an impossible task. Those who can will flee the country instead of fighting for it.
- kingofpandora 5y agoThey are fighting for it. It's just hard to see from you perspective because they are fighting against who you want to win.
- koonsolo 5y agoSo how do you explain all the Afghan refugees right now? Seems like they all love the Taliban so much they want to get out as soon as possible.
- lobocinza 5y agoThe many that collaborated with the US forces in any way fear retaliations. And if history provide insight, heads might roll. Look at what happened with French woman that slept with germans after WW2. Life is harsh and injust by default.
- emilsedgh 5y agoYou are assuming Taliban _left_, and Afghans are letting them come back. Initially, Taliban offered surrender. US denied their terms. So they kept on fighting and rebuilding. They took over the country in less than a month. They never left. They were always there.
- chewz 5y agoThe US approach will never work. It is just naive to think it will. Chinese approach to radical islam will work. But West will never admit that. Chinese see islam as totalitarian ideology that is incompatible with Chinese values and competing communist totalitarianism.
- j-krieger 5y agoThis is a very ironic comment considering that the soviets, not the US liberated Europe from Germany. They fought the hardest battles, lost the most soldiers, fought for the longer time and were first in Berlin. The public just believes otherwise because of 70 years of US propaganda [1]. The only thing US soldiers left us europeans with are a massive influx of refugees of which we have to take care of and for which we are ridiculed by US politicians and their citizens alike. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year...
- smhost 5y ago> The only thing US soldiers left us europeans with are a massive influx of refugees Don't forget the military bases and the half-secret spy networks linked to terrorist attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://www.italy24news.com/local/143373.html https://www.italy24news.com/local/143373.html
- StephenJGL 5y agoAhhh, hammer and anvil. The tools are different. They look different. The purpose and effect are different, but basically useless without the other in most circumstances. The role of the US and Russia are inextricably linked at the end of WWII and to pretend either was irrelevant, or either "really did all the work", is to simply ignore history.
- yyyk 5y agoI suspect the OP feels the US saved them (also) from the Soviets, and that there was no need to replace one murderous ideology with another.
- BasDirks 5y agoWithout the soviets, the war would not have been won, but how about we celebrate and honor this without shitting on America?
- weimerica 5y ago> This is a very ironic comment considering that the soviets, not the US liberated Europe from Germany. You're responding to another human, such that its a locality sensitive sentiment. To a French, Belgian or Dutch national the US is the savior of that war - the Soviets being uninvolved in their liberation. As an aside, I wonder if there exist an Slavic-language HN where Eastern Europeans argue that American steel was the true winner in the war and the Soviets don't deserve glory...
- supergirl 5y agoUS only implanted itself in europe. that was a genius move. to this day they have huge military bases there. USSR fought the decisive battles though. 80% of german war casualties where in the eastern front. US just swooped in and filled the power vacuum in western europe