Russians left, US left, and now Speculation is that Chinese Army is Ready to Enter Afghanistan?

Speculation

Breaking! Kandahar Air Base Hit By Missiles! Chinese Army is Ready to Enter Afghanistan!

 

I hope that some other government will assist Afghanistan in not letting the thaliban take the country back over.
I read in a news article yesterday that if the thaliban takes back over that people will be forbidden to have dinner dates with people of the opposite sex when not married.
People will be forbidden from being friends with people of the opposite sex.
People will no longer be able to wear what they want.
Poor afghans. They are going back to the stone age without help from the west.

 

It is a civil war. Ignoring Lerner's opening post since we shouldn't put any stock in disreputable sources.

Anyway, it's a civil war. Twenty years is long enough. It is long enough to be at war with one side of the civil war in another country. Yes I agree it is sad if the Taliban takes over. But, it's not our job to stay in Afghanistan forever to keep the apparent minority in power. If Taliban support is in the minority then it is even more unforgivable that the majority can't protect themselves from a minority of radical scumbags.

 

When you will NOT fight for your county that is what you deserve.

 

We should not put stock in any site but validate the contend no mater how "reputable" the site is. But ignoring opening post or any post is indeed optional.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/562037-china-will-be-the-next-empire-to-enter-the-afghan-graveyard

 

This is where we significantly differ. Validating news stories is beyond our expertise, available time, job description, and anything else I can think of. I say ignore all less than reputable news sources. If a not reputable news source ever actually scoops a story then the reputable news sources will quickly pick it up. The more important the story the quicker it will be picked up. I feel that this philosophy has been proven right over and over again while your posting of breaking news assertions such as this has never panned out as far as I recollect.

 

Interesting, I only listened to about 15 seconds of it to try and find out the source. I think it said "Deep Journal Channel". Which doesn't even show up on MediaBiasFactCheck! This is extremely rare for them to not even be aware of a source. It is super easy to be listed there even for a 2 bit one man operation. It will be listed but mediabiasfactcheck will just list them but say they have not yet evaluated the source. I think someone in their parent's basement putting out their first scam video is an excellent guess for a source.

The Republican base seems inclined to depend on sources with no credibility. It is why almost a quarter of Republicans believe QAnon silliness. It just completely boggles my mind!

 

Maybe it is how you are seeing this, but I'm very skeptical about accredited main stream media. IF the story of interest tome I usually try to find multiple sources about it.
Trying to filter out the bias, at times complement the omitted portions of the events, etc. If there is matching footage that for possibly good reason is not presented, because it may violate some rules but its basically maybe the more important part of the event that is under reported or suppressed. Like some news that got suppressed may have had an effect on how people vote etc.

 

But the info to me was interesting and I tried to verify it.
I realize that on you tube people can create what ever they want to a degree. Some just come with some fake pictures of officials in handcuffs, or a title that will attract viewers to bump the video creators traffic.
I compared to the more reliable sources and international agencies etc. Not that I have time on my hands but for issue that gets my interest I'm willing to do more research.

 

You don't know what you are doing! Finding multiple not reliable sources that say the same thing is NOT verifying anything. Sorry but that is a ridiculous assertion.

 

Rereading my last post I see that it could be misinterpreted as a potential insult. I should have prefaced it with something like, "Obviously you are not a journalist. That is not how information is verified." Sorry.

 

"Never fight a land war in Asia" is attributed to many people. It is understood by even more.

 

I read some opnions that ground war while very expensive and difficult, with high casualties and scars is important for the training and development, of the military. And the industries associated with selling and manufacturing, design of weapons, missiles etc.
That the experience as some generals say is priceless for the future generation of commanders, solders, and weapons development.

Even do some question if future wars will be conventional at all or to what extent.
The advancement of missiles and the technology, drones, robots, e-warfare, cyber etc
the future of combat and wars is becoming very different.

 

If we ever experience a total war event between major powers in the future... we all should hope to become vault dwellers... Conventional forces of armies and navies will pale in comparison to the destruction that can be unleashed on a modern civilization that is hit with electronic warfare, drones, missiles, and satellite/sea-cable silencing by a major power. There's been some great articles as of late on the American model of warfare in different countries, primarily Iraq and Afghanistan, over the past few decades. That in the future the military even has acknowledged we will be unlikely to ever spend months building up large infrastructure in neighboring friendly countries, obtaining information and sky dominance, and than proceeding on our own schedule. Some terrifying realities on how that model is both too slow and creates terrifying vulnerabilities that a handful of other countries are already capable of exploiting.

 

Lest not forget biological warfare, who know maybe we are under such attack already since end of 2019?