Afghan War ending, foretold by The Onion 10 years Ago [DT thread ruined by politics]

[Bullneck 19,530]

22 minutes ago, Lat22 said:

I'm not going to read a single other post in this thread so forgive me if this has been discussed.  This is for non gun people.  In all of the pictures and video I see of the Taliban, 90% of them are carrying new American rifles.  Some of them have thermal rifle scopes, laser sighting systems and other technology that they could never dream of having.  Overnight, they went from 50 year old AK47s with shot out smooth bore barrels to the latest greatest weapon systems.  Whenever we have to go back, and we will, our troops will be fighting against our own weapons.  Just another one of the many fuck ups of this withdrawal. 

I assume they have ammo as well.  For a while anyway.  

Now, if General Bullneck was in charge, I would have ordered G-4 to take all that ammo somewhere and blow it up.  I would have done that even if it were something that had never crossed Biden's mind.  Seems to me to be a pretty down-in-the-weeds military procedure.  

As many times as our embassies and such have come under attack you'd think we'd have a pretty well thought out "get the fuck out of Dodge" plan.

[Bateshorn 9,991]

34 minutes ago, Lat22 said:

I'm not going to read a single other post in this thread so forgive me if this has been discussed.  This is for non gun people.  In all of the pictures and video I see of the Taliban, 90% of them are carrying new American rifles.  Some of them have thermal rifle scopes, laser sighting systems and other technology that they could never dream of having.  Overnight, they went from 50 year old AK47s with shot out smooth bore barrels to the latest greatest weapon systems.  Whenever we have to go back, and we will, our troops will be fighting against our own weapons.  Just another one of the many fuck ups of this withdrawal. 

They might be carrying that stuff around, but I doubt much of it is going to be functional in a few months.  There’s a reason we equip our allies with Kalishnikov style weapons: they require minimal maintenance.  US weaponry is super dependent on our over the top logistical support.  
 

I also doubt there’s a plethora of 5.56 NATO floating around in international arms markets. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Bateshorn

[BabaYaga 15,625]

10 hours ago, Bullneck said:

I've read the Taliban say we need to be out on the 31st.  What do you think of that?

You act as if we can't decide whether to leave our car in the garage walk a little farther than we'd like or drive off and get a new space at our next destination, wherever we find it. 

Is it possible this is more complicated than that?  Do you know what those complications are?

Allowing them to dictate any terms on extrication is never going to be in our best interests.  That is why auguring in on a date BEFORE securing manpower and materials is absurd.  We did this entire thing backwards.  Abandoning Bagram was arguably the worst move in this entire messed up chess match.  This denied US and ANA forces a key support zone to allow us to dictate terms - namely we will leave once we have secured XYZ, and not a minute sooner.  We painted ourselves into a corner so Biden could tout his symbolic removal on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.  He had one good card, played it immediately, and showed everyone his hand.  

The issue will be the thousands of stranded NGOs.  In the presser the admin indicated they are "trying", but admitted they don't even know where they all are or how many are even out there.  This is about as worse case scenario as it gets.  Tens of billions in gear (including sensitive coms gear, nods, and biometric data) falling into the wrong hands is bad, thousands of potential hostages.  JFC, Carter only had to deal with 55...

[Brothahorn 10,097]

They might be carrying that stuff around, but I doubt much of it is going to be functional in a few months.  There’s a reason we equip our allies with Kalishnikov style weapons: they require minimal maintenance.  US weaponry is super dependent on our over the top logistical support.  
 
I also doubt there’s a plethora of 5.56 NATO floating around in international arms markets. 

Taliban having first world problems like the rest of us. When you do find ammo, you don't want to shoot it. Cause you might need it later.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 hour ago, Lat22 said:

I'm not going to read a single other post in this thread so forgive me if this has been discussed.  This is for non gun people.  In all of the pictures and video I see of the Taliban, 90% of them are carrying new American rifles.  Some of them have thermal rifle scopes, laser sighting systems and other technology that they could never dream of having.  Overnight, they went from 50 year old AK47s with shot out smooth bore barrels to the latest greatest weapon systems.  Whenever we have to go back, and we will, our troops will be fighting against our own weapons.  Just another one of the many fuck ups of this withdrawal. 

Of course we will, and they've had AK's for quite some time now I believe.

[Bateshorn 9,991]

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Allowing them to dictate any terms on extrication is never going to be in our best interests.  That is why auguring in on a date BEFORE securing manpower and materials is absurd.  We did this entire thing backwards.  Abandoning Bagram was arguably the worst move in this entire messed up chess match.  This denied US and ANA forces a key support zone to allow us to dictate terms - namely we will leave once we have secured XYZ, and not a minute sooner.  We painted ourselves into a corner so Biden could tout his symbolic removal on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.  He had one good card, played it immediately, and showed everyone his hand.  

The issue will be the thousands of stranded NGOs.  In the presser the admin indicated they are "trying", but admitted they don't even know where they all are or how many are even out there.  This is about as worse case scenario as it gets.  Tens of billions in gear (including sensitive coms gear, nods, and biometric data) falling into the wrong hands is bad, thousands of potential hostages.  JFC, Carter only had to deal with 55...

This take underestimated how much we relied on the Afghan army for security.  Bagram is a huge facility.  If we had to secure it all on our own, we’d have had to vastly expand our footprint in the country.  That’s not to say it wasn’t doable, but our problem is always going to be the same:  as a land locked country not close to US out of country resources, and being denied a land exit via the central asian nations, there was always going to be a moment where the Afghan government had to cover our ass to get our last troops out after we had evacuated everyone else. 

[Bullneck 19,530]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Allowing them to dictate any terms on extrication is never going to be in our best interests.  That is why auguring in on a date BEFORE securing manpower and materials is absurd.  We did this entire thing backwards.  Abandoning Bagram was arguably the worst move in this entire messed up chess match.  This denied US and ANA forces a key support zone to allow us to dictate terms - namely we will leave once we have secured XYZ, and not a minute sooner.  We painted ourselves into a corner so Biden could tout his symbolic removal on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.  He had one good card, played it immediately, and showed everyone his hand.  

The issue will be the thousands of stranded NGOs.  In the presser the admin indicated they are "trying", but admitted they don't even know where they all are or how many are even out there.  This is about as worse case scenario as it gets.  Tens of billions in gear (including sensitive coms gear, nods, and biometric data) falling into the wrong hands is bad, thousands of potential hostages.  JFC, Carter only had to deal with 55...

OK, you're right. 

Getting out was just a matter of planning it carefully, acting to save our equipment and NGOs and interpreters, loading up and flying off into the sunset.

It was an easy mission and one man fucked it all up.  No one knows why, except maybe he's senile like Fox says.

Biden wuz dum for doing it his way, since he personally was pulling all the strings and making all the calls.  Sort of a head coach who can step in and play QB if needed.

 

On a slightly related note, have you ever seen those people in trailer homes on the beach at Elevation 2' above sea level who won't evacuate when a Cat 5 hurricane is supposed to land in 24 hours?  Crazy, right?

 

[InkaUtexas 26,896]

10 hours ago, Bullneck said:

I appreciate your posts more than you know. Let me ask, what is the downside risk to Americans to set up these access corridors, and man them on September 1st?

Thanks, I appreciate it. 

I would not "man" them with humans, but have overwatch for the non-babul parts of the country. I said this earlier. People knew we were leaving and chose to stay. That is on them for a large part. 

[wildcat09 29,579]

18 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Allowing them to dictate any terms on extrication is never going to be in our best interests.  That is why auguring in on a date BEFORE securing manpower and materials is absurd.  We did this entire thing backwards.  Abandoning Bagram was arguably the worst move in this entire messed up chess match.  This denied US and ANA forces a key support zone to allow us to dictate terms - namely we will leave once we have secured XYZ, and not a minute sooner.  We painted ourselves into a corner so Biden could tout his symbolic removal on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.  He had one good card, played it immediately, and showed everyone his hand.  

The issue will be the thousands of stranded NGOs.  In the presser the admin indicated they are "trying", but admitted they don't even know where they all are or how many are even out there.  This is about as worse case scenario as it gets.  Tens of billions in gear (including sensitive coms gear, nods, and biometric data) falling into the wrong hands is bad, thousands of potential hostages.  JFC, Carter only had to deal with 55...

We don't know where all our NGOs are in any country on earth and you'd lose your goddamned mind if the American government tracked all of its citizens wherever we go around the globe.

[BabaYaga 15,625]

5 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

On a slightly related note, have you ever seen those people in trailer homes on the beach at Elevation 2' above sea level who won't evacuate when a Cat 5 hurricane is supposed to land in 24 hours?  Crazy, right?

I do like that this is the new narrative.  They "wanted" to stay.  LOL.  When this is your new talking point, you know all the water you're carrying is in a bucket full of holes

[BabaYaga 15,625]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

We don't know where all our NGOs are in any country on earth and you'd lose your goddamned mind if the American government tracked all of its citizens wherever we go around the globe.

There it is...

[Bateshorn 9,991]

Hence the basic point: literally nobody thought the Afghan government and military would collapse so quickly.  Once that happened, it’s been adapt, survive, overcome mode ever since.  We are making it up as we go because we do not have an allied in country partner. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Bateshorn

[BabaYaga 15,625]

8 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

This take underestimated how much we relied on the Afghan army for security.  Bagram is a huge facility.  If we had to secure it all on our own, we’d have had to vastly expand our footprint in the country.  That’s not to say it wasn’t doable, but our problem is always going to be the same:  as a land locked country not close to US out of country resources, and being denied a land exit via the central asian nations, there was always going to be a moment where the Afghan government had to cover our ass to get our last troops out after we had evacuated everyone else. 

One of the primary reasons sourced for the ANA cutting out was a lack of support - namely from Bagram.  One day they could pick up the coms and get help.  The next day the phone lines were down.  You're trying to say this was "just inevitable".  LOL, no.  

You are also making my point for me - such a massive exfil with changing situations on the ground cannot be painted into a corner with an arbitrary date

[BabaYaga 15,625]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Hence the basic point: literally nobody thought the Afghan government and military would collapse so quickly.  Once that happened, it’s been adapt, survive, overcome mode ever since.  We are making it up as we go because we do not have an allied in country partner. 

LOL, what?  Military and intel analysts were screaming this for months before Biden made the call.  Further, it's funny that NOW, Biden is asking for contingency plans.  Seems that might have been a good idea before as well when your have a single point of failure wit the ANA

[Bateshorn 9,991]

Dude, relying on “your making my point for me” is the laziest and weakest online taking point. 
 

If the Afghans couldn’t cover our retreat, then we couldn’t really leave.  Date or no date. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Bateshorn

[Bullneck 19,530]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I do like that this is the new narrative.  They "wanted" to stay.  LOL.  When this is your new talking point, you know all the water you're carrying is in a bucket full of holes

This isn't a monolithic set of people, conditions, or emotions.  Some people ALWAYS wanted to get out.  Some figured hey, we got an army and a president, damn I like this new Afghanistan, and wanted to stay until they wanted to leave.  Then the shit hit the fan and the situation changed. 

It went from a few people to a whole hell of a lot of people, and with a lot less internal support (the Afghan govt).  

 

BTW, do you know any of the American military commanders names or just Biden's?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

8 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Hence the basic point: literally nobody thought the Afghan government and military would collapse so quickly.  Once that happened, it’s been adapt, survive, overcome mode ever since.  We are making it up as we go because we do not have an allied in country partner. 

Obviously not literally anybody. I'll pretty much bet the farm that lots of intel, and military people were speculating otherwise, but the people who were being listened to definitely seemed to feel that way.  

I will add that once things started to go south, I don't think the Biden admin. started making any concrete plans for the contingencies they claim they did.  That presser is still leaving a horrible taste in my mouth.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[Brisketexan 106,901]

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Hence the basic point: literally nobody thought the Afghan government and military would collapse so quickly.  Once that happened, it’s been adapt, survive, overcome mode ever since.  We are making it up as we go because we do not have an allied in country partner. 

A whole lot of this.  ANY exit plan -- hasty, slow, what have you, would have to depend on a functional in-country partner.  Turns out, we didn't have one.  Now, I fault the admin (and apparently, all of the other NATO powers as well, as they made the exact same mistake) for trusting the optimistic intel instead of the pessimistic intel when planning the exit.  Me, I'm a "plan based on the worst-case scenario" kinda guy.  But then, I'm a paranoid fucker, AND, I realize that requires significant assets and costs which we perhaps didn't have/didn't have the collective will to expend.

So, we make the next-best plan based on how the chess board looks each morning.  That's the way the real world works.

Expecting/demanding that a menu that was always going to be a list of alternating shitty options actually offer a GOOD option is pointless, and always has been.  Once we committed to being an occupying force in Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago, the last chapter was largely written, with a title of "And Now Comes Another Super-Shitty Part."  The way and degree of shittiness may have had some variability, but imagining that our exit was ever going to be remotely good is a pipe dream.

[Bullneck 19,530]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

There it is...

Serious question: you are very invested in this issue (here on an internet website that has 0 impact on anything):

Without giving away your location or identity* can you tell us how you got so knowledgable and connected to this issue?  

*secret agent stuff

[Bullneck 19,530]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Obviously not literally anybody, but the people who were being listened to definitely felt that way.  I will add that once things started to go south, I don't think the Biden admin. started making any concrete plans for the contingencies they claim they did.

Can you tell us where you get your info?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

58 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Can you tell us where you get your info?

NPR played several clips of people stating (before Congress in some cases) that the Afghan gov't wouldn't fall quickly.

If we had made contingencies for every possible scenario as Mr. Biden pretty much directly stated, we would have been getting people out sooner, would have been getting people to the airport, wouldn't have lost so much military hardware, and wouldn't have lost Kabul so quickly. Speculation on my part about that, but when your CIC states "we made contingency plans for every scenario" you'd like to think they were viable plans, and not just some lie being peddled to save face.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[DDD Dad 14,652]

42 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

We painted ourselves into a corner so Biden could tout his symbolic removal on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.  

Yes, that's the only reason we are where we are.  You have a very selective memory.

[sidis 10,017]

cross-posting with the dt thread.

the current tally is approximately 82,300 evacuated since august 14th.  probably going to grow quite a bit today.

total of 21 casualties so far...

• 11 afghan civilians killed in stampedes around the airport.
• 6 afghan civilians killed attempting what could best be described as "stowaways."
• 2 unknown gunmen killed by u.s. troops.
• 1 afghan guard killed in a firefight involving u.s. and german troops.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 5,001]

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

They might be carrying that stuff around, but I doubt much of it is going to be functional in a few months.  There’s a reason we equip our allies with Kalishnikov style weapons: they require minimal maintenance.  US weaponry is super dependent on our over the top logistical support.  
 

I also doubt there’s a plethora of 5.56 NATO floating around in international arms markets. 

Just last week or so Biden used executive order to sanction Russia, banning the importation of ammo into the United States (Russian ammo was a significant source of practice ammo for many folks here because of its affordability), for the poisoning of some dissident or something, I can't remember the exact details. Anyhow, that is something he has the authority to do under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. Where do you think all that excess ammo is going to go? They already have the capability to make 5.56 NATO. And an M-16 is not that hard to maintain in working order. There's a reason its civilian counterpart is the best selling rifle in the US.

[Bateshorn 9,991]

4 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Just last week or so Biden used executive order to sanction Russia, banning the importation of ammo into the United States (Russian ammo was a significant source of practice ammo for many folks here because of its affordability), for the poisoning of some dissident or something, I can't remember the exact details. Anyhow, that is something he has the authority to do under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. Where do you think all that excess ammo is going to go? They already have the capability to make 5.56 NATO. And an M-16 is not that hard to maintain in working order. There's a reason its civilian counterpart is the best selling rifle in the US.

There’s a reason it’s not internationally.  The Taliban isn’t exactly cashed up.  They can develop a program and resources to keep our weapons in working, or just shoot them till the break and go back the AK variants, which are cheap as dirt and require no maintenance.

 

Maybe the Russians and Chinese will retool to produce our ammunition and parts, or maybe they’ll just keep churning out 7.62*39 like they have for the last 70 years. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Bateshorn

[NotActuallyALonghorn 5,001]

They already make it, so it's just a matter of increasing production vs 7.62x39.

[Brothahorn 10,097]

Just last week or so Biden used executive order to sanction Russia, banning the importation of ammo into the United States (Russian ammo was a significant source of practice ammo for many folks here because of its affordability), for the poisoning of some dissident or something, I can't remember the exact details. Anyhow, that is something he has the authority to do under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. Where do you think all that excess ammo is going to go? They already have the capability to make 5.56 NATO. And an M-16 is not that hard to maintain in working order. There's a reason its civilian counterpart is the best selling rifle in the US.

What the hell? So they can have a pipeline to Germany. But, can't sell us ammo? Ass backwards

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

5 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Just last week or so Biden used executive order to sanction Russia, banning the importation of ammo into the United States (Russian ammo was a significant source of practice ammo for many folks here because of its affordability), for the poisoning of some dissident or something, I can't remember the exact details. Anyhow, that is something he has the authority to do under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. Where do you think all that excess ammo is going to go? They already have the capability to make 5.56 NATO. And an M-16 is not that hard to maintain in working order. There's a reason its civilian counterpart is the best selling rifle in the US.

What the hell? So they can have a pipeline to Germany. But, can't sell us ammo? Ass backwards

What's up is down, right is wrong, black is white....Biden is a puppet it sure seems.

[Js1 87,186]

 

[Brothahorn 10,097]

What's up is down, right is wrong, black is white....Biden is a puppet it sure seems.

More like a muppet with that logic.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, Brothahorn said:

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

What's up is down, right is wrong, black is white....Biden is a puppet it sure seems.

More like a muppet with that logic.

Heheheheh, Yeah, but I love the Muppets.

[Brisketexan 106,901]

1 hour ago, Brothahorn said:

2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Just last week or so Biden used executive order to sanction Russia, banning the importation of ammo into the United States (Russian ammo was a significant source of practice ammo for many folks here because of its affordability), for the poisoning of some dissident or something, I can't remember the exact details. Anyhow, that is something he has the authority to do under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. Where do you think all that excess ammo is going to go? They already have the capability to make 5.56 NATO. And an M-16 is not that hard to maintain in working order. There's a reason its civilian counterpart is the best selling rifle in the US.

What the hell? So they can have a pipeline to Germany. But, can't sell us ammo? Ass backwards

Well, I mean, there is one big difference in your comparators.  One of our allies is involved with the first one, and really, really wants/needs the stuff that will go through that pipeline.  So, we'd ALSO have been telling Germany "fuck you, you can't have any Russian gas."  That's a....rather significant distinction.

I'm not defending the ammo ban, by the way.  Just noting that it's not a good comparison, at all.

[Js1 87,186]

Yes, America really really really needs more ammo on the streets.  We should import more guns too! 

[GW Hayduke 1,957]

1 hour ago, Brothahorn said:

2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Just last week or so Biden used executive order to sanction Russia, banning the importation of ammo into the United States (Russian ammo was a significant source of practice ammo for many folks here because of its affordability), for the poisoning of some dissident or something, I can't remember the exact details. Anyhow, that is something he has the authority to do under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. Where do you think all that excess ammo is going to go? They already have the capability to make 5.56 NATO. And an M-16 is not that hard to maintain in working order. There's a reason its civilian counterpart is the best selling rifle in the US.

What the hell? So they can have a pipeline to Germany. But, can't sell us ammo? Ass backwards

Banning imports of ammo from an adversary shouldn’t be equated to an ally receiving a pipeline and increased energy capacity 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Banning imports of ammo from an adversary shouldn’t be equated to an ally receiving a pipeline and increased energy capacity 

In a global strategic plan ? Oh hell yes it should be.  Getting energy from a known adversary is not a smart, long term plan.

[Brisketexan 106,901]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

In a global strategic plan ? Oh hell yes it should be.  Getting energy from a known adversary is not a smart, long term plan.

It probably isn't.

But it may also be the smartest short and medium-term plan.

We shipped a lot of weapons to the USSR in WWII.  Maybe not the best long term plan.  But a very sound short and medium term plan.

The world isn't all black and white.  We can't just unilaterally get our way, including telling our allies "no, fuck you, we'll tell you what you get and you'll sit back and take it."  The world doesn't work that way.  And the more we try to make it work that way, the more it repeatedly blows up in our face.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

It probably isn't.

But it may also be the smartest short and medium-term plan.

We shipped a lot of weapons to the USSR in WWII.  Maybe not the best long term plan.  But a very sound short and medium term plan.

The world isn't all black and white.  We can't just unilaterally get our way, including telling our allies "no, fuck you, we'll tell you what you get and you'll sit back and take it."  The world doesn't work that way.  And the more we try to make it work that way, the more it repeatedly blows up in our face.

They were our ally then, and were not as of May of 1945.  Yeah I know its a very complicated situation. 

[Brisketexan 106,901]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

They were our ally then, and were not as of May of 1945.  Yeah I know its a very complicated situation. 

They were an ally of convenience.  We were FAR from politically aligned before the war.  We certainly weren't looking to arm the USSR.  Until we were.

Germany needs an affordable source of gas.  Which means proximity of the source matters.  In Europe, that means Russia.  It is what it is.  The US doesn't need Russian gas....Europe does.  Telling them "no, you can't have it," without being able to offer up an alternate source at a similar price, wasn't a viable option.  It never was.  The whole freakout over the pipeline here was utterly foolish.

We do WAY too much believing of our own bullshit that we're the baddest dude on the block, so whatever we say goes.  We may be the toughest guy on the block in some respects....but not all....and it's a BIG fucking block, with a lot of other people living on it.  "Everyone do what we say, because we're big and bad and we say so" isn't a great foundation for successful policy.  It really only works in war, and even then, the existence of the war itself is your opponent literally saying "prove it."  And I presume you've been paying attention....our "proving it" hasn't gone super-well since 1945.

[elfenix 34,752]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

brian tyler cohen was on that yesterday

 

 

[Brothahorn 10,097]

Yes, America really really really needs more ammo on the streets.  We should import more guns too! 

If the Taliban can have M4's why can't we? Hell we paid for those.

[Brothahorn 10,097]

Well, I mean, there is one big difference in your comparators.  One of our allies is involved with the first one, and really, really wants/needs the stuff that will go through that pipeline.  So, we'd ALSO have been telling Germany "fuck you, you can't have any Russian gas."  That's a....rather significant distinction.
I'm not defending the ammo ban, by the way.  Just noting that it's not a good comparison, at all.

Banning imports of ammo from an adversary shouldn’t be equated to an ally receiving a pipeline and increased energy capacity 

I was being a smart ass with the comparison. The ammo ban is probably more of an FU to us than the Russians.

But you have to laugh at the compromising position this puts one of our largest NATO allies in with regards to NATO's once biggest threat. With all that pipeline money maybe they can move back to the top of the list

[GW Hayduke 1,957]

5 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Yes, America really really really needs more ammo on the streets.  We should import more guns too! 

If the Taliban can have M4's why can't we? Hell we paid for those.

A sizable portion of our population is already too much like the taliban

[Brisketexan 106,901]

4 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

I was being a smart ass with the comparison. The ammo ban is probably more if an FU to us than the Russians.

But you have to laugh at the compromising position this puts one of our largest NATO allies in with regards to NATO's once biggest threat. With all that pipeline money maybe they can move back to the top of the list

Yep.  I wish that we lived in a world where Europe didn't need Russian gas.

But I don't.  Reality is what it is.

[Bullneck 19,530]

3 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Just last week or so Biden used executive order to sanction Russia, banning the importation of ammo into the United States (Russian ammo was a significant source of practice ammo for many folks here because of its affordability), for the poisoning of some dissident or something, I can't remember the exact details. Anyhow, that is something he has the authority to do under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. Where do you think all that excess ammo is going to go? They already have the capability to make 5.56 NATO. And an M-16 is not that hard to maintain in working order. There's a reason its civilian counterpart is the best selling rifle in the US.

Was it this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny

 

Also, I don't think "working order" and the AR-15's popularity are in any way connected.  The latter is successful tough guy cosplay marketing.

[ChickenSandwich 9,959]

 

 

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 5,001]

If that is what you think, then you are completely disconnected with broader American gun culture. There is definitely that aspect, but the AR-15 is popular for many other reasons that make it the most practical all around rifle to own for many folks, and one of those is it is simple and easy to maintain in working condition. If something on it breaks, pretty much anybody can easily fix it themselves without needing the services of a gunsmith.

[wildcat09 29,579]

15 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If that is what you think, then you are completely disconnected with broader American gun culture. There is definitely that aspect, but the AR-15 is popular for many other reasons that make it the most practical all around rifle to own for many folks, and one of those is it is simple and easy to maintain in working condition. If something on it breaks, pretty much anybody can easily fix it themselves without needing the services of a gunsmith.

The AR-15 is popular because it looks cool and is easy to modify.

[UpperWestside 6,279]

On 8/24/2021 at 9:51 AM, BabaYaga said:

It's cute how everyone utterly pickled in fucking politics tries to defend this shit show.  As if any points I'm making are not also being echoed by both foreign and domestic media outlets on the amateur hour extrication we are watching unfold.  Called out for the fuck up that it is and the obvious steps bypassed by this inept administration, we still don't even have an accurate headcount of western people still stranded or even where they are.  Watching tens of billions in US hardware, including sensitive coms gear and night vision paraded around by Taliban fighters on Twitter.  Called out by foreign military leaders who are actually trying to take steps to rescue stranded NGOs, that our own castrated leaders are telling them to stop as it's "making them look bad".  But yeah, keep fucking that chicken.  

You have been getting called out because this is a partisan issue to you. It is not about evacuating our fellow human beings with you. You have looked for something partisan to bash on and this is your new flavor of the month. This is partly why so many people pile onto you. Between the endless conspiracies you propagate on this board and this I am not sure where you find the time to do much else. Push the computer to the side and go do something positive for an afternoon. All this hate and negativity just burns you up and gets more and more people to continue to pile on you. 

[sidis 10,017]

48 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Yes, America really really really needs more ammo on the streets.  We should import more guns too! 

If the Taliban can have M4's why can't we? Hell we paid for those.

 

republicans wanting to emulate the taliban's behavior is the most obvious bingo card center square of all time.

 

42 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

But you have to laugh at the compromising position this puts one of our largest NATO allies in with regards to NATO's once biggest threat. With all that pipeline money maybe they can move back to the top of the list

you mean the nato ally that has spent a few years begging us to get out of the way of the project and to let it finish?

[Nivek 17,415]

Yep.  I wish that we lived in a world where Europe didn't need Russian gas.
But I don't.  Reality is what it is.

But we can still have oil form wherever when we need it right?