Has WWIII begun?
- Thread starter dudehead
- Start date
Considering the financial disasters most first world governments have created on their own balance sheets in the last few decades, war seems like the only way to effectively divert attention and blame away from their incompetence and greed.
Pakistan vs Afghanistan? Is that like auburn vs bama? Who are we supposed to pull for?
I do know that neither one of them has SEC speed
zero natties between both programs.
Don't compare us to Pakistan you slut.
I am going to just post an observation that is not intended to be political. It is entirely an observation based on confusion.
I dont understand how all the below can be true since there seem to be contradictions.
- While the US was in Afghanistan for like 2 decades, the US and global allies constantly complained about how Pakistan was providing support to the Afghan Taliban and even protecting them inside Pakistan.
- Pakistan Taliban and Afghan Taliban are different groups, but they are closely aligned and share ideology as well as ties.
- This war is happening, in part, because Pakistan accused the Afghan Taliban of harboring Pakistan Taliban rebels.
- Pakistan Taliban is trying to overthrow the Pakistani government.
So Pakistan provided aid and safe shelter to Afghan Taliban for years and years, Afghan Taliban and Pakistan Taliban have ties and commonalities, Pakistan Taliban is trying to overthrow Pakistan government, and Pakistan is pissed at Afghan Taliban for protecting Pakistan Taliban.
What the total 17?!
It seems like Pakistan is pissed at Afghan Taliban for doing what Pakistan did for years- providing aid and safe shelter to an enemy...which was the Afghan Taliban!
Shirley you could have used fewer words to convey your thoughts.
It was then that they knew they had 17ed up..
Last edited:
Afghanistan had zero military until we left them 80 billion in military equipment plus a huge base with airstrips. Kind of like going from 16th in the SEC standings to about 5 or 6 overnight.
The post straight up says I am confused because of the complexities of the situation based on the last couple decades.
So yeah, its a confusing post.
If you care to clarify any of the confusion, I would welcome it.
I know nothing about it, but it would not be surprising for Pakistan to be ok with harboring the Afghani Taliban when they think it harms the US, but not want them there when it's not directly harming the US or just for different factions in Pakistan to feel differently about both situations.
A little different system, but we somehow were trying to strengthen Iran at the same time that we were not really reducing material support for Israel. And it wasn't even at the request of defense contractors. We just had political dynamics where the politicians supporting Israel who thought was important couldn't stop the ones that thought having Iran being a regional hegemon was a good idea and vice versa.
More like Indiana/Purdue, before about two years ago.
I'll bet the CIA has a minimum of 200 analysts on the Pakistan and Afghanistan desks for this reason. You don't know who is shooting at you or why and it changes before you can even figure out who to shoot back at.
What are we totally obliterating this time?
WW III must have started 20 times in the last 30 years.
That equipment was for the OTHER Afghan army, the one that wasn't supposed to surrender to the Taliban on day 1.
Never try to figure out people who still wipe their *** with bare hands and walk amongst open sewers. Let them sort it out and booby trap a few goats to help it along. 
.
And Iran has been a couple of months away from a nuclear bomb since the 90s.
Ever see that episode of Andy Griffith where the goat ate the dynamite? It was pretty good. That Barney is a silly willy.
The only thing the world is going to do is breath a collective sigh of relief when the Ayatollah's "peaceful" nuclear facilities get taken to Poundtown again...
Attachments
-
download.jpg
Turns out holy wars make no logical sense. Couple that to "honor" culture and your head spins.
Because I was curious and I read an article a while back about either us disabling most of what was left behind, or it being effectively useless without our parts/maintenance ongoing...Co-pilot say:
Short answer: No — the U.S. did not leave $80 billion worth of military equipment behind in Afghanistan.
That figure is widely repeated but misleading.
Here’s the clear breakdown, based on official reports and fact‑checks:
Where the $80+ billion number comes from (and why it’s wrong)
- The U.S. spent about $83–88 billion over 20 years to train, pay, equip, and support Afghan security forces.
- That total included salaries, fuel, food, training, facilities, logistics, and maintenance, not just weapons and vehicles.
- Many public figures and social media posts incorrectly treated this total spending as if it were all equipment left behind. [snopes.com], [independent.co.uk], [yahoo.com]
What was actually left behind
According to Pentagon, SIGAR, and congressional reports:- About $7.1 billion worth of U.S.-funded military equipment remained in Afghanistan when the Afghan government collapsed in August 2021. [voanews.com], [edition.cnn.com]
- This equipment belonged to the Afghan government, not to U.S. forces.
- Nearly all U.S.-owned equipment used by American troops was removed or destroyed before withdrawal. [voanews.com]
What that $7.1 billion included
Pentagon and SIGAR reports list items such as:- Aircraft (helicopters and light attack/transport planes)
- Ground vehicles (Humvees, MRAPs, armored trucks)
- Small arms and ammunition
- Night‑vision devices and communications gear
- Much of it required U.S. contractor maintenance and quickly became inoperable. [edition.cnn.com]
- Some aircraft were disabled, lacked spare parts, or were flown out by fleeing Afghan pilots.
Why the misunderstanding persists
- The $80B figure sounds dramatic and is easy to misuse.
- Early images of Taliban fighters with U.S. gear created the impression that everything was captured.
- Political rhetoric often conflated total spending with leftover equipment, despite official corrections. [checkyourfact.com]
Bottom line
$80 billion left behind? No.
~$7 billion in Afghan‑government equipment remained, much of it unusable over time.- The larger $80+ billion figure reflects 20 years of total security assistance, not abandoned weapons.
I still think Janet was hotter than Chrissie.
Pretty much whatever we want to when we want to and you should pray to the almighty or whatever you do that we can.....it may sound callous but I'm pretty sure you don't want to be #2 in this world.....that blue passport loses it's status and all these culture wars and blue vs red crap becomes meaningless
I feel much better nowBecause I was curious and I read an article a while back about either us disabling most of what was left behind, or it being effectively useless without our parts/maintenance ongoing...Co-pilot say:
Short answer: No — the U.S. did not leave $80 billion worth of military equipment behind in Afghanistan.
That figure is widely repeated but misleading.
Here’s the clear breakdown, based on official reports and fact‑checks:
Where the $80+ billion number comes from (and why it’s wrong)
- The U.S. spent about $83–88 billion over 20 years to train, pay, equip, and support Afghan security forces.
- That total included salaries, fuel, food, training, facilities, logistics, and maintenance, not just weapons and vehicles.
- Many public figures and social media posts incorrectly treated this total spending as if it were all equipment left behind. [snopes.com], [independent.co.uk], [yahoo.com]
What was actually left behind
According to Pentagon, SIGAR, and congressional reports:
- About $7.1 billion worth of U.S.-funded military equipment remained in Afghanistan when the Afghan government collapsed in August 2021. [voanews.com], [edition.cnn.com]
- This equipment belonged to the Afghan government, not to U.S. forces.
- Nearly all U.S.-owned equipment used by American troops was removed or destroyed before withdrawal. [voanews.com]
What that $7.1 billion included
Pentagon and SIGAR reports list items such as:
However:
- Aircraft (helicopters and light attack/transport planes)
- Ground vehicles (Humvees, MRAPs, armored trucks)
- Small arms and ammunition
- Night‑vision devices and communications gear
- Much of it required U.S. contractor maintenance and quickly became inoperable. [edition.cnn.com]
- Some aircraft were disabled, lacked spare parts, or were flown out by fleeing Afghan pilots.
Why the misunderstanding persists
- The $80B figure sounds dramatic and is easy to misuse.
- Early images of Taliban fighters with U.S. gear created the impression that everything was captured.
- Political rhetoric often conflated total spending with leftover equipment, despite official corrections. [checkyourfact.com]
Bottom line
True.And Iran has been a couple of months away from a nuclear bomb since the 90s.
Pakistan does have nuclear weapons, though. Nothing to do with your point, but I didn’t see that mentiined elsewhere in the thread and this seemed like a good place to do so.