Reply #1: Well sad to say, but you win a war by losing soldiers.

[RandomThoughts]

That galvanises sympathy from status quo stuff, and people around those situations. The only other way is to push the norm and change it. And it seems what they think of as winning in Afganistan is changing the country.

So when casualties happen, the side that loses a person gains new recruits from that hurt. That does not mean you let people die, but when people are dying people around them want to help them. That is why there are so many false flag attacks in history.

Bullets really don't work.

And the US going into Afganistan almost has to be a goal of changing it and that has to be a 'world group goal' It is not about America or terrorism, but about bringing into the 'system' the countries not in what they think of as the system.

No way anyone in America cooked up the idea of that war without doing it for interest of multinationals. I would say it is a Saudi/Euro/Isreal/US and multinationals that like the idea. Who knows, probably other groups in on it to. Or maybe the idea is just to have war, hence why Pakistan was reported involved in the way it was. There are some that think there is a static level of violence in the world, and if it can be put in one place then it wont be elsewhere, they think that making enclaves of bad stuff keeps other people safe.


And if it is true that civilians are dying more, that does not mean he did not have the right idea, only that it was not effective.