CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

---

---

The Taliban have already destroyed the left behind equipment because they can't maintain it…


And you would have proposed to deploying our air power assets and use our VERY shallow precision attack munitions inventory to blow up a bunch of stuff the muj were going to do themselves?

Fire is very good at transforming military equipment into scrap steel.

A few drums of gas and diesel and a lot of IG could have been burned beyond salvage, regarding what we could control or did possess.

Yeah, a lot of the smaller stuff we gave the Afghans was probably stolen or abandoned or handed over when they surrendered or fled but a lot of the equipment was still under our control or oversight until the very end. It could have been piled up and burned.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Fire is very good at Turing military equipment into scrap steel.

A few drums of gas and diesel and a lot of IG could have been burned beyond salvage, regarding what we could control or did possess.

Yeah, a lot of the smaller stuff we gave the Afghans was probably stolen or abandoned or handed over when they surrendered or fled but a lot of the equipment was still under our control or oversight until the very end. It could have been piled up and burned.

---

We didn't have troops present where the Afghans were…given the manpower requirements and logistical requirements in the timeline required it was unobtainable.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

I've never been there but I bet there's a pretty big portion of the air field where they could have staged a lot of it and had a pretty sizable bonfire.

Canyon beat me to it, but same concept.

---

I want you to move 30,000 vehicles from El Paso, Lubbock, Dallas, Texarkana to Brownsville with a few dozen troops and destroy them in a matter of weeks.

It's the same concept.

---

This is the problem. This timetable was the Biden administration's making.

American Hardwood said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

I've never been there but I bet there's a pretty big portion of the air field where they could have staged a lot of it and had a pretty sizable bonfire.

Canyon beat me to it, but same concept.

---

I want you to move 30,000 vehicles from El Paso, Lubbock, Dallas, Texarkana to Brownsville with a few dozen troops and destroy them in a matter of weeks.

It's the same concept.

---

This is the problem. This timetable was the Biden administration's making.

---

Incorrect, they stuck to the timetable set up by the Trump Admin.

Not quite. That time table had a checklist of events that would trigger a halt of the Taliban and Afghans failed to meet certain conditions. My understanding is that was violated several times and yet no halt was initiated while the violation was rectified. It was loosely the Trump administration plan but it wasn't strictly followed.

I will concede that a lot of the equipment practically couldn't by gathered or destroyed but that isn't the same in any way as saying we left nothing there, implying that we left NOTHING there.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

I've never been there but I bet there's a pretty big portion of the air field where they could have staged a lot of it and had a pretty sizable bonfire.

Canyon beat me to it, but same concept.

---

I want you to move 30,000 vehicles from El Paso, Lubbock, Dallas, Texarkana to Brownsville with a few dozen troops and destroy them in a matter of weeks.

It's the same concept.

---

This is the problem. This timetable was the Biden administration's making.

---

Incorrect, they stuck to the timetable set up by the Trump Admin.

---

Funny. the New York Times doesn't mention Trump in this breakdown:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/21/us/politics/biden-taliban-afghanistan-kabul.html

Instead, it describes a series of decisions and miscalculations on Biden's part. It is very weak to blame your predecessor when you are the guy making the decisions at the time. He was under no obligation to do anything Trump may outlined regarding withdrawal at an earlier date. This is 100% on Biden.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Not quite. That time table had a checklist of events that would trigger a halt of the Taliban and Afghans failed to meet certain conditions. My understanding is that was violated several times and yet no halt was initiated while the violation was rectified. It was loosely the Trump administration plan but it wasn't strictly followed.

I will concede that a lot of the equipment practically couldn't by gathered or destroyed but that isn't the same in any way as saying we left nothing there, implying that we left NOTHING there.

---

If you want to argue that Biden was bound and determined to get out of there, I totally grant you that.

My overarching argument is that we were beyond the point of getting some achievable there and we needed to move on.

Getting out was always going to be a mess, could it have been done better? Absolutely….

Did it need to be done?

Without a doubt.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

I've never been there but I bet there's a pretty big portion of the air field where they could have staged a lot of it and had a pretty sizable bonfire.

Canyon beat me to it, but same concept.

---

I want you to move 30,000 vehicles from El Paso, Lubbock, Dallas, Texarkana to Brownsville with a few dozen troops and destroy them in a matter of weeks.

It's the same concept.

---

This is the problem. This timetable was the Biden administration's making.

---

Incorrect, they stuck to the timetable set up by the Trump Admin.

---

Holy ****, you believe that the timetable for Trump's plan to leave Afghanistan would have been executed if it knowingly armed the Taliban? So everything else that Trump did in 4 years Biden's handlers dismantled in the first week in office, but they religiously followed his plans for nationwide vaccine mandates and withdrawal from Afghanistan? Which of course makes it all Trump's fault. The mental gymnastics the left uses is ridiculous, I do not believe you are in any way shape or form even close to right of center regardless of your stated support of Haley.

I agree leaving was inevitable. If the Afghans fidnt care to fight for it, why the hell should we? If they didn't want to keep the Taliban out, then at some point we had to come to an understanding we would be willing to leave it to them if they would keep their lunatics in check regarding terrorism.

It would have been tempting to keep and fortify Bergram AF but you don't want to Dien Bien Phu yourself, no matter how good the strategic position was.

That not an excuse, imo. Joe biden is now and was then the president. If he thought we needed more time, then he could have damn well amended the time table.

It's not like the tali wasnt riding down the middle of the road and couldn't have been slowed down.

AnScAggie said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

I've never been there but I bet there's a pretty big portion of the air field where they could have staged a lot of it and had a pretty sizable bonfire.

Canyon beat me to it, but same concept.

---

I want you to move 30,000 vehicles from El Paso, Lubbock, Dallas, Texarkana to Brownsville with a few dozen troops and destroy them in a matter of weeks.

It's the same concept.

---

This is the problem. This timetable was the Biden administration's making.

---

Incorrect, they stuck to the timetable set up by the Trump Admin.

---

Holy ****, you believe that the timetable for Trump's plan to leave Afghanistan would have been executed if it knowingly armed the Taliban? So everything else that Trump did in 4 years Biden's handlers dismantled in the first week in office, but they religiously followed his plans for nationwide vaccine mandates and withdrawal from Afghanistan? Which of course makes it all Trump's fault. The mental gymnastics the left uses is ridiculous, I do not believe you are in any way shape or form even close to right of center regardless of your stated support of Haley.

---

You want proof?Look at Trumps withdrawal from Somalia even after our troops had been attacked by Al Shabab at Manda Bay early in 2020.

Kash Patel and ECW were on the warpath to withdraw from wherever they could.

If supporting Haley doesn't make me right of center then I don't know what does.

I think we can do it better externally…and at a cheaper cost.

My main priority is we focus resources and assets to deter China…and Afghanistan even with a few thousand troops was a giant money pit.

Yeah, there are better ways to spend the money especially if the locals would be hostile.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Yeah, there are better ways to spend the money especially if the locals would be hostile.

---

Im a "our biggest challenge is China, we limited resources, and we need to budget appropriately to handle that challenge" kind of guy...

The retrograde was a sht show for me, I had friends who got stuck there, I worked the evac of interpreters who worked for me...and I look back at the entire Afghan experience as invalidating a year of my life where I had friends die.

It's an extremely personal experience for me...however we were beyond the point of saving it (when that occurred is an entirely sep conversation).

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

I've never been there but I bet there's a pretty big portion of the air field where they could have staged a lot of it and had a pretty sizable bonfire.

Canyon beat me to it, but same concept.

---

I want you to move 30,000 vehicles from El Paso, Lubbock, Dallas, Texarkana to Brownsville with a few dozen troops and destroy them in a matter of weeks.

It's the same concept.

---

Let me see....ok, I've got it. 5 local bonfires. They knew the date was coming, your **** pants in chief had said they were sticking to it.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

I've never been there but I bet there's a pretty big portion of the air field where they could have staged a lot of it and had a pretty sizable bonfire.

Canyon beat me to it, but same concept.

---

I want you to move 30,000 vehicles from El Paso, Lubbock, Dallas, Texarkana to Brownsville with a few dozen troops and destroy them in a matter of weeks.

It's the same concept.

---

Let me see....ok, I've got it. 5 local bonfires. They knew the date was coming, your **** pants in chief had said they were sticking to it.

---

Again, tell the guy holding the gun, fighting the Taliban, knowing that the Muj are likely going to try and kill him if they win, to willingly give it up.

Good luck with that.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

Maybe he meant to say that we lost them in a big lake of dust. works for me.

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

---

How do you take weapons away from people that are actively using them to defend themselves?

We didn't just leave them. We gave them to the enemy. Biden got his 10% and all was good.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

I've never been there but I bet there's a pretty big portion of the air field where they could have staged a lot of it and had a pretty sizable bonfire.

Canyon beat me to it, but same concept.

---

I want you to move 30,000 vehicles from El Paso, Lubbock, Dallas, Texarkana to Brownsville with a few dozen troops and destroy them in a matter of weeks.

It's the same concept.

---

This is the problem. This timetable was the Biden administration's making.

---

Incorrect, they stuck to the timetable set up by the Trump Admin.

---

So you're selling that though Biden has had no qualms reversing pracically everything Trump accomplished throughout his presidency, he HAD to stick to the timetable on this one issue?

Oh, and by the way, Trump's timetable was actually in May of 2021 - IF the Taliban held up their end of the deal. (Which they didn't). Biden, all on his own, moved the the date to September 11th of 2021. Anything ring familiar about that date? I'm sure that date wasn't selected for political reasons. Biden would NEVER do that.

The whole argument of sticking to the Trump timetable is a false flag.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

---

How do you take weapons away from people that are actively using them to defend themselves?

---

So you agree that Kirby is wrong when he says we didn't leave weapons in Afghanistan.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

---

How do you take weapons away from people that are actively using them to defend themselves?

---

You're arguing two sides here. That's the whole point. They weren't defending themselves. Afghanistan was collapsing all through the first part of the Biden administration.

The strategy failed. Tactically, we should have stayed long enough to secure the weapons and get our assets - both human and weaponry - out safely. That didn't happen. We cut and ran, and gifted all of those assets - both human and weaponry - to the enemy. It's a colossal military blunder. I'm surprised you're defending it.

And it's 100% on Biden. Trump had zero input on the tactical aspects of the withdrawal.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Simply ask them, "Would you rather live under a Taliban with these weapons they can use on you or without?"

---

In there mind, they would have thought;

"You want me to give you the thing that I am using to defend myself? Because if the Muj take over they'll kill me with an AK, a rock, or defenestrate me…doesn't take an M-16 to do it."

---

Liberal scumbags want us US citizens to give up the things we use to defend ourselves and unless you're wealthy an M16 is not an option. They want to take the affordable neutered semi auto versions away as well. They've got no problem gifting tens of thousands M-16s to the fricking Taliban though. Liberals are the worst!

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

---

And how would you destroy it?

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

---

How do you take weapons away from people that are actively using them to defend themselves?

---

So you agree that Kirby is wrong when he says we didn't leave weapons in Afghanistan.

---

Again, I've already said that Kirby's statement is accurate. Those weapons weren't ours, we physically transferred custody to the ANSF.


The argument is wether or not it was realistic with get the ANSF to give up hundreds of thousands of systems that they were actively using because the ANSF was likely going to lose to the Taliban.

I fully expect to see a reprint of 1984 with the following updated title:

"1984: The Official Handbook of the DNC"

Even the MSM was giving them hell when this was all going down and it was a fact back then that Biden's negligence left a **** ton of weapons with the enemy.

But now that time has passed and everyone has moved on they are just going to change the story to get ahead of next election and no one will call them on it.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

---

How do you take weapons away from people that are actively using them to defend themselves?

---

So you agree that Kirby is wrong when he says we didn't leave weapons in Afghanistan.

---

Again, I've already said that Kirby's statement is accurate. Those weapons weren't ours, we physically transferred custody to the ANSF.


The argument is wether or not it was realistic with get the ANSF to give up hundreds of thousands of systems that they were actively using because the ANSF was likely going to lose to the Taliban.

---

If you are that obtuse, no further point in arguing with you. We all knew the moment we left that the Taliban were taking over and grabbing anything valuable not destroyed. We left the weapons because we were unprepared. If we had been prepared, we wouldn't have left them.

Taliban Commando Forces Training video. Not sure what Johnny boy is smoking, after rewatching this video again, there sure are a lot of American made weapons.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Who knew

KIRBY: "We didn't just leave a bunch of weapons in Afghanistan. This is a fallacy. This is a farce."

(He's lying) pic.twitter.com/IQgG9jR2xY

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 19, 2023

Pretty bold statment from Kirby on an easily provable falsehood

---

How about "abandoned?" Or "donated?" What a ****ing schill.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

Line everything up and let some aircraft practice straffing. Place ecerything close together and drop some jdams or an emp. Remove key components of technical equipment such as helicopters (break rotors in half). Drain oil in engines and turn on till...

Let the northern alliance take everything and move the seat of the afghan govt north. Destroy anything they dob't take.

All goes back to a piss poor plan.

---

So you want to line up a bunch of stuff spread over a country the size of Texas and California combined, in the middle of a shooting war, where one side willingly gives up the thing they are using to defend themselves, and do this with a just a few dozen troops?


Sure. Sounds doable.

---

You don't have to line them all up in the same spot, airplanes can travel.

And not with a few dozen troops, pay the afghan army to do it when you figure out you're going to leave.

This isn't a rocket science operation. Your can't do attitude is weak.

Meanwhile...
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48895.htm
"NATO actively contributes to effective and verifiable arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation efforts through its policies, activities and the efforts of Allied countries."

If Big Brother tells us no weapons were abandoned and left to the Taliban in Afghanistan, who are we to question?

There were no weapons left behind, and our Chocolate rations this month have been higher, even though they weighed less.

Case closed.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Well that took about 10 seconds to disprove.

Weapons the US left in Afghanistan

Quote:

---

After the military exit in the summer of 2021, SIGAR quoted a Taliban official as saying, "The group took possession of more than 300,000 light arms, 26,000 heavy weapons, and about 61,000 military vehicles." That's on top of what they already had.

---

---

Again...those were ANSF assets.

---

Built and paid for by Afghanies am I right?

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

---

How do you take weapons away from people that are actively using them to defend themselves?

---

So you agree that Kirby is wrong when he says we didn't leave weapons in Afghanistan.

---

Again, I've already said that Kirby's statement is accurate. Those weapons weren't ours, we physically transferred custody to the ANSF.


The argument is wether or not it was realistic with get the ANSF to give up hundreds of thousands of systems that they were actively using because the ANSF was likely going to lose to the Taliban.

---

Hot-take there. JFC that's dumb.