/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Where lolis are free speech and Hitler did nothing wrong

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
+
-
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0 (Temporarily Dead).

Ghost Screen
Celebrating its fifth anniversary all September


8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

Be sure to visit /polarchive/ for file libraries and our companions at /pol/ alternative and /hispol/ Also remember the boards for The 8moe Hub, The 8moe Lounge, Animation, Board Games, Books, Degenerates, Eagles, Fitness, Food, Japan, LOL, Magic, Stonks, Technology, The Royal Palace, Those Who Consort With Beasts, Video Games, and Weapons Remember to archive all links, and videos should be attached to posts or using a front end

(103.53 KB 512x512 images.steamusercontent.jpg)

Modern wars have stagnated Anonymous 05/10/2025 (Sat) 11:49:16 Id: 2c6d09 No. 43841
Russia and Ukraine are stuck in an endless meat grinder similar to the western front during WW1 Israel still hasn't taken all of Gaza or fallen Syria, defeated Hamas and Hezbollah, Houthis have overcome all overcome all odds and war with Iran still hasn't happened to make way for "Greater Israel" China and US engaged in a slow burn tariff war India and Pakistan are utterly incompetent. Especially India. Jets keep failing, tanks are useless, drones and missiles are king, projects keep getting scrapped, patriotism is at an all time low, man is inexperienced due to 80 years of peace.
>>43841 >man is inexperienced due to 80 years of peace. >eastern europe >middle east >peace sorry mate but the world is different outside of your own life and personal experiences
No, “modern war” as understood within the cultural zeitgeist is actually “the US military doing war”. Literally no other country on the planet is capable of it. In Russia’s and Ukraine’s case the main area of failure are having very weak officer corps. They lack the organizational power necessary to conduct large-scale complex combat operations and the only way to do them is to have a strong officer corps (including both commissioned and non-commissioned).
Please sign up for the military OP. Do it bitch.
Gee I wonder why
>>43841 >western globohomo hasnt taken over these places because that wasn't the goal, they either want satellite states or proxies. All of these aren't as costly as sending actual troops but they can be equally profitable, and even if they don't get what they want, they cause a chain reaction big enough in these zones so they can come back later and try again
(1.83 MB 1500x1500 india its over.png)

>>43841 The Ukie war has always been a shitshow of incompetence. And now both sides hole up in the ground and refuse to move either way. War can be brutal as fuck and can end very quickly. Leaders in charge are just weak as fuck and constantly half or stop movements. You think Putler can't bomb the shit out of Kiev all day and all night? You think Pakistan can't just nuke the shit out of Mumbai and end it the same day? It's all weak leaders
>>43947 >War can be brutal as fuck and can end very quickly Yes, however wars can't be won quickly, which is why mutts eventually lost every war they quickly "won"
>>43961 Name a single war in the last century that the US lost.
>>43964 Afghanistan
>>43965 The US won that war.
>>43967 You mean they won against Iraq? Afghanistan was occupied for 20 years and we just left it in the hands of the Taliban.
>>43968 Depends what you consider winning. The US wasted Bin Laden and stopped Al Qaeda using Afghanistan as a base, but they failed in nation building. The Karzai govt was shit and deserved to be abandoned though, they weren't even really pro-Western.
(128.23 KB 898x628 ShowImage.jpg)

>>43975 >Al Qaeda using Afghanistan as a base no. Al Quaida was running smooth until Obongo moved their finances to Mossads ISIS project.
>>43841 WW1 did end tho, because one side had about 1/5th of the ressources of the other. People dying literally didn't matter to anybody. Israel is fighting random tunnel rats, genociding and gigamurdering them on every level. The only problem there is Israel not getting wiped out, as usual, unchanged since 1948. It doesn't even have anything to do with war; neither does the USA attacking Iraq or whatever the fuck. That's not war, just mass murder. War requires a certain mutual component. >muh tariff war I'm tariffing your mother's blown out vagina, nigga. >Indian and Pakistan Again a totally different matter: the problem is them not wiping each other out. So tl;dr your criticism is that in conflicts throughout all history there have been survivors, and this means war changed by not changing at all, because not 100% of people and life-forms are killed? You do have a point, but it's more of a genoicide matter than war matter (which is politics) >why you leave enemy alive??!! Don't ask me. Stupidity? Incompetence? Typical human traits for sure.
Why is everybody fighting? Do they need the latest smartphone or something? The space race is over, best we can do now is offer shitty internet for 150 dollars a month. Why do they even need internet considering a few thumb drives can fit the entirety of anything useful on them? What is the actual goal?
>>43979 What is up with Germans being such fags on this board?
they aren't stagnated at all. open up the broom closet and you'll find the real reason is endless conflict with no real clear goals is a huge profit boon for those warbound. ///number go up\\\ and sustain when you pretend like "war" is happening.
>>43968 The war officially ended in 2014 with a total victory. In reality it ended years before in the most lopsided and complete win in modern history.
>>43967 Who controls Afghanistan now? >>43968 Iraq is slowly kicking mutts out too
>>44010 >Afghanistan was supposed to be the 51st state
>>44010 The US did not take the country, but simply kicked out the old government and provided support for the new government when the war was over. Afghanistan was in no way, shape or form a US possession.
>>44023 >>44030 Coping trannies. The same organization controls Afghanistan as before the mutt invasion.
>>44003 Most of the "Germans" you see here are a certain Russian diasporafag posting under a German flag, that's why.
>>44044 >The same organization controls Afghanistan as before the mutt invasion. The taliban? Wasn't the CIA funding them back in the 80's and 90's after the Soviets invaded?
>>44044 >brings up trannies out of no where No better than leftists calling anyone who they disagree with a "Nazi".
>>44047 >>44048 Yes, and? Does that mean the mutts didn't want to win when they invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban?
>>44054 >Does that mean the mutts didn't want to win when they invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban? I thought we invaded to capture Bin Laden.
>>44044 The US destroyed the Taliban and their leadership ran to Pakistan. Over the years the Taliban regenerated itself and it fought with the Afghani government. The US was involved in helping the Afghanistan government until it decided to leave, and the Afghani government was defeated shortly afterwards. The US did not lose even once to the Taliban, the Afghani national government is not America or even an American proxy, it was at most a client state. ONE small airbase operating on a skeleton crew was enough to keep the Afghani government in the fight for years, the Taliban was a joke and it’s laughable to think it defeated the US in any way.
>>44047 You are thinking of the Mujahdeen or whatever their name was. They were a similar group but backed by the US that would later stop receiving any support from the US so they eventually dissolved, that would leave many of its members as dejected tools and disappointed. Talibans in the other hand were likely backed by the Russians but to a lesser extent. Some members of the Mujahdeen would even join the Taliban as the puppet State imposed by the american forces wasn't what they had expected and had many disagreements with locals. The whole occupation in Afghanistan was a mess from the start and would have lasted less if not for the air support and the Taliban running back to the mountains, limiting their actions to ambush and snatching smaller groups of american forces. From the Puppet Government who would only do things because they were cashing in, with little to no intention in buying out the american propaganda and re-education to the godawful topography. Afghanistan was a hard place to occupy, it favored guerrilla warfare greatly and even made it harder for the air force. >half-urban towns with pretty much no vantage point and limited water supply/resources >open plains surrounded by mountains that favors attack/retreat tactics >unless you went back into the desert, increasing the cost of the occupation, you pretty much had no escape if you were ambushed >mountains served as an untouched refuge to the Taliban, the US would rarely if ever go that far >a culture that didn't give much of a shit about politics with the exception of radical muslim groups who saw the puppet State as traitors >armored units were pretty much just bigger targets >all of this against hordes of poorly equipped groups making the economic cost too high to maintain Any form of advance done by the US was mostly gained thanks to the Air Force which once again, only increases the cost of the occupation. Actual occupation was only possible in very specific areas. By the end of the occupation, the US had mostly been sending poorly experienced Hernandez and Pablo. The reason why so many veterans went back was exactly because they felt like they had achieved nothing over the years(sunken cost fallacy). >>44061 Nah, there are many theories but besides the obvious, probably the biggest one was to have control over the production of opioids which placed Afghanistan as one of the world's biggest producers at the time. a.k.a Opium Wars but done by the US >>44062 >US had around 20k casualties during the Iraq-Afghan era >victory over Iraq was mostly thanks to the expensive carpet bombing campaigns and in the name of Israel with little profit in return >subsequent occupation of the urban areas had easy-access escape routes in case of anything >meanwhile in Afghanistan >the pull out was done out of panic and very improvised >so badly executed that it left millions of dollars in equipment behind >the US even had to pay the Pakis to get back some of the equipment that had been sold to them via Black Market by the Taliban if that's a win to you, then you must be quite the naive neocon >but we killed far more according to the CIA, the difference between the Afghan and the US casualties was minimal, mostly due to the safe haven they had in the mountains and more familiarity with the zone. Funnily enough that's the same issue the Soviets would encounter against the Mujahideen. Wars arent won by killing more but if it was worth the cost, see the Soviets in WW2. Only reason why the US isn't mentioning it all the time is because it'd be a demoralizing hit into an already demoralized nation


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply