How many trillions of $$$$ did the USA spend trying to defeat these guys? Why can't they be defeated?

How many trillions of $$$$ did the USA spend trying to defeat these guys? Why can't they be defeated?

guerilla warfare.

the USA could annihilate them in less than a week if it didn't have to worry about civilian casualties.

how would they defeat them in a week?

because we keep funding them to create and enemy so we can go to war with them. Really great for the people who are running this country, bad for the people paying taxes. Its a perpetual scam in some sense

glass the desert

This and its hard defeating an enemy that has super religious motives backing them

Because of """""Civilian"""""" casualties.

Rules for war are perhaps the dumbest thing anyone has ever come up with. Just carpet bomb the whole fucking country; napalm edition. Problem solved.

You can't defeat them without depopulating Afghanistan.

It's mountains

How would they be defeated quickly? In what way is the USA holding back?

That wouldn't solve anything just create more terrorists

Well that's why you bombed the whole country, now what're they gonna do about it? Everything's destroyed.

"Ideas are bulletproof" works both ways
You can exterminate every single Isis member and leader but Isis will still exist, the idea of terrorism cranked up to 11

What makes it even more retarded is that only one side actually follows the rules and completely handicaps themselves by doing it.

because the americans get paid to fight, talibanas would do it for free

They aren't anymore muslums to become terrorists when you glass them

They have failed to defeat them because all there doing is dropping normal bombs on them, you either have to step up your bombing game or put boots on the ground.

They cant be defeated because libtards honestly believe that drones are the answer to everything but it turns out theyre wrong.

Nukes

That worked out so well in Vietnam, didn't it?

Pakistan

>defeat
>implying

They are live targets for weapon testing. It cost as much as taking the whole military to the shooting range.

You can't defeat them because muslim will always try out jihad even other muslims, see Taliban vs Northern Alliance, see Gülen vs Erdogan see Saudis vs Houthis.

No trees and shit in the desert. Sure there's mountains, but unless these jihadi fucks plan on living in mountains for the rest of their life they don't really have much of a chance. Also the US still avoided civilian casualties in Vietnam.

And of course, you can't run or hide from radiation.

They can't be defeated because for every goat fucker you blow up, there will be ten more to replace them.

Who cares. Only rural and suburban retards join the army.

We absolutely buttfucked the Taliban and their general army as well as the general Iraq Army

a partisan resistance does not mean the continuation of the real war, it's just a nuisance

good job on laying roadside bombs and sleeping in a cave I guess

they could use VX-gas but that would be illegal.

Allah (pbuh) grants his noble warriors victory.

The Taliban do not control the government of Afghanistan.

We'll just station troops there until we stomp them out with long range attacks. We got time.

because they're fighting an idealism that calls for fighting.

It's like trying to dry water with a soaking wet towel.

Afghanistan is trees and mountains you stupid nigger

Obviously I'm talking about realistic responses. VX gas and nukes are not realistic

because part of those trillions arms them. its like giving your enemy an upper hand so the fight is more fair.

Just blow it all up, who gives a fuck about the hows and whys. Laws and regulations on war don't make sense.

If it ain't desert, it should be.

Actually, the only thing that did work in vietnam was the airstrikes.

I think we're holding back because we could plant a flag in them and occupy... then instill our own government and irradiate any form of extremism.

you get it wrong, they don't spend money to "defeat" these guys, they spend money to eat each other, but the brilliant minds of the CIA didn't count on them to turn on their Agency allies

>they

there's like 3 or 5 large drug cartels that run things, ??? warlords, tribal divisions, corruption, the afghan government controls half a province around kabul, and the taliban has safe haven in pakistan so they come and go for the fighting season. defeating the taliban has never been the issue. uniting the afghans and getting them to behave like humans has been impossible. they're corrupt to the core and as soon as someone steps up that's got any leadership abilities he gets murdered by someone. the problem isn't in defeating them, it's in building a nation out of so many opposing groups.

Not many trees anymore, the entire area around Kabul and any midsized towns are completely barren for miles

Islamic military organizations draw their ranks from the population. Massacring "civilians" will draw international attention and then possibly intervention. It'll also drive the people away to the gangs. Middle Eastern farmers literally don't give a crap when militias harangue them with taxes and fuck their daughters but they'll get up in arms only to fend off what they perceive to be foreign kaffir invaders. You have to treat it like a disease. Bribe the population. Form infrastructure. Reward intelligence. Create military-civilian construction projects like building bridges that employ the local population and let them have a chance to mingle with the American soldiers. When you establish their dependence and provide the basic necessities of life and the little carrot on a stick luxuries, they'll drive out the sickness on their own. You pretty much treat Muslims like children who don't know what's good for their own.

> Implying the Deep State wants them defeated.

They get support from the Pakistani government and are used as a proxy army just like ISIS.

The areas where the Taliban play around are trees and mountains, bordering all along pakistan

It did work. Vietcong casualties were much higher than American casualties.

>libtards
>drones
I feel like lots of posters on here have grown complacent that no one will call them out on their bullshit.

Libs hate wars, period. Governments (both Republican and Democrat) love drones because if they get shot down or fail due to mechanical reasons (happens to even the best of planes and Air Forces) then there's no pilot to capture or send home in body bags. Images of body bags with US dead in Vietnam, stacked like firewood, really looked bad for war. Showing POWs on TV made us look impotent and humiliated. With drones, you avoid such complications.

The bottom line is (and this will shock you) Americans don't have the stomach for war anymore. They don't care about body count or K/D ratios. People don't like portraits of handsome young men in uniform, with their bright futures in front of them, next to flag-draped coffins. They don't like hysterical mothers and weeping fathers next to graves. Mothers don't like have their sons shipped back in body bags. With every dead or crippled American, people start to ask inconvenient questions, such as
>"Why are we in

So like you did in Iraq, great plan redneck.

You will never defeat Muslims.

And you will always be on the wrong side of history.

Some things are just facts.

>You pretty much treat Muslims like children who don't know what's good for their own.

if they didn't behave like dumb children they wouldn't be treated like dumb children.

yeah it depends where you are in the country, where I was stationed everything was brown. my favorite thing about when I came home was seeing trees and grass again

Because the Americans are too nice. You should be like the Nazis if you want to really make sure they keep down.
Kill one of us? Fine, we'll randomly kill 20 men from your town.

Not just us but Russia.

>the only way to truly win would be to kill them all

>Create military-civilian construction projects like building bridges that employ the local population and let them have a chance to mingle with the American soldiers

they tried that.
it increased corruption since the locals learned what the could get away with from the american contractors and then charged way more for their own murrican backed projects.

Building basic infrastructure is still counter-insurgency 101

The rules of engagement in Vietnam were even more onerous than today.

Some general said (I can't find the quote, but I think it was LeMay):
>In WWII, I chose the targets. In Vietnam the President did

Look up the rules of engagement for bombing North Vietnam, even if an attack was imminent . It was stupid complicated

This and we were still not allowed to bomb a lot of things. We glassed Dresden, but were not allowed to bomb Buddhist temples being used as armories because muh culture. We were incrementally handicapped as the war progressed, while China and Russia were allowed to continue unhindered providing material support for the north.

>you can build new houses but not people
>bomb the fuck out of infrastructure
>hai guise we heard you have housing problemos? we can rebuild, cheap
>all the while sell guns to both sides

Muh profit

>to defeat these guys?

you mean to arm these guys?

Man that's a ridiculous statement, I'd love to meet this Roland guy and tell him how things really are

Except for those little shit skin children of yours who used the pressure cooker bomb in Boston.
>B-but they still detonated it and killed people.
Only 3, and then they ran, and one got run over, and the other grovelled in court to his victims and still got the death penalty. Kek great success.

:^)
first time that line made me laugh

Why you don`t respect glorious anti-soviet warriots?

Gorilla warfare and the fact that the majority of the population have some support for terror groups, which is understandable given that their country is being occupied. They could be defeated in 30 minutes or less but using nukes like that probably wouldn't end well

Fuck Brzezinski, he still brags about "muh Greenbelt", "Muh beartrap" to this day.

wars are fought to make money, not be won