Almost no war is won by entirely defeating the opponent. Most wars end because the costs of continuing the war exceed the acceptable threshold for one party. The Taliban got what they fought for - they won. (Whether the Taliban represent the majority of the Afghan Population is a separate matter)
I agree, but a lot of people seem to confuse the fact that america "losed the war" from a political perspective from a technical perpective
people did not 'buy' in to the reason of invading iraq. but from a technical angle america could have obliterated the entire countries of both iraq/ afganistan with out nukes - something USSR could not have done
>Almost no war is won by entirely defeating the opponent
no convential / historic war has been done like this - yes. but newer weapons / tech could do this. again in theory with the correct politics.
Russia has given the world a bit of a wake up. China seems to have bought in to this crazy thinking (I've always thought that China is not very foward thinking) and they do have the politics and tech to wipe out countries like russia wanted to do with UKR
Pretty confusing, it lost it, "could" and technical perspective don't help that - and I doubt that could is even close to certain.. unless you mean they could have gone nuclear and killed everyone?
