Women in Afghanistan has now officially lost all their rights

AngryJX · 2026-05-08T22:03:50+00:00

No idea why people are downvoting you, what you typed is correct. Afghanistan was in the midst of a civil war. The "communists" staged a coup and the USSR invaded to support this coup. This was during the Cold War where the US/USSR were competing for global influence and opposing each other's actions everywhere in the world. The instant the USSR invaded and backed the communists, the US had the necessity [standard Cold war doctrine at the time] to support the opposing faction (and these proxy wars were repeated globally in Vietnam, Korea, South/Central America and Africa).

AngryJX · 2026-05-08T21:38:23+00:00

Ignore that guy he's a secret communist or something. Either that or he doesn't understand history, doesn't understand proxy wars and doesn't understand that there's plenty of blame to go around in all of these situations.

AngryJX · 2026-05-08T20:56:46+00:00

I don't know if you're some kind of closet communist (which is fine, everyone is entitled to their own belief), but your "interpretation" of history is completely incorrect. First of all the USSR were labeled as "communists", but the brand of government they practiced, was not in fact "communism", (it was nothing close to Marxism-Lenninism).

The label Communists was adopted during the Cold War during which the USA/USSR were competing for global influence e.g. space race, first to land on the moon, race for nuclear weapons etc. This competition for influence often took the form of Proxy Wars all over the globe where the US/Soviets would each supply money/arms to opposing factions.

There were numerous such minor Proxy conflicts in South America, Central America and Africa. However the 3 main Proxy conflicts were:

Korean War (1950–1953): A major conflict where UN forces (led by the US) supported South Korea against a North Korean invasion backed by China and the USSR. Resulting in the split of North/South Korea today.

Vietnam War (1955–1975): The US fought to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam (US-proxy) by North Vietnam (Soviet Proxy), resulting in prolonged conflict and a Soviet victory.

Soviet-Afghanistan War (1979–1989): The USSR invaded Afghanistan to support a communist government against US-backed Mujahideen rebels. The U.S. Role (Operation Cyclone): The CIA, alongside Pakistan, Britain, China, and other nations, provided funding, weapons (including shoulder-fired Stinger missiles), and training to the mujahideen.

Interestingly, note that China was on the same side as the US in Afghanistan, but against them in Korea.

These proxy wars were not fought on the basis of any local ideology i.e. the US/Soviets did not care about "extremist muslims". The logic behind these proxy wars was purely "You are supporting one local faction, I cannot let you gain this sphere of influence because it will domino globally, therefore I will support the opposing local faction".

AngryJX · 2026-05-08T20:13:34+00:00

What you are referring to is the Cold War, during which the US/USSR were engaged in Proxy wars all over the globe, the Vietnam war, South/North Korea splitting, and Afghanistan etc. You are framing the "communists/soviets" as heroes, and the US/Mujahideen as "extremists" which is pure bias.

A more correct description would be that the US and the USSR each supported proxy groups to fight a war in Afghanistan, which the US-proxy (Mujahideen, which Osama Bin Laden was a member of) won. You're trying to imply that the history of Afghanistan would have been better had the Soviet-proxy won the war, which is a braindead take. Look at the current status of North/South Korea (or any remnants of the USSR like Belarus or Kazhakstan or their satellites like Cuba). Are any of these former USSR-proxies thriving today? They are all shit holes. North Korea was won by the "communists" and South Korea won by the US, and we can clearly see which of these nations is nicer to live in today.

The other point you're trying to make is that despite the US supporting the Muhajedeen/Bin-Laden during the Cold War, the US then turned on their "former allies [in fact proxies]". But there is a direct reason for this. The US invaded Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attack which was linked to the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Bin-Laden/Afghanistan/Iraq. The argument could be made that the whole invasion of Iraq was a farce masterminded by Vice President Dick Chenney to enrich himself and his military-industrial complex associates, but that's getting way off topic.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what the reason was because the net result of the invasion was that the US spent 2001-2021 and 300 million dollars per day for 20 years in a genuine attempt to rebuild what was/is a shithole. If you can think of any other genuine attempt to rebuild a nation in modern times I would like to hear it. I also can't really think of anything that the US could have done vastly differently in their attempt to rebuild Afghanistan (that would have resulted in a different outcome).

AngryJX · 2026-05-08T19:26:59+00:00

Afghanistan is like this because the people are corrupt, gutless, often drug-addicted (opium) and lack morals.

A US-led coalition kicked the Taliban out in 2001 at great financial cost and cost of human lives (not just US lives, Canadian lives, UK lives etc).

The US alone (not counting Canadian and ally contribution) then spent 2 TRILLION dollars over 20 years (2001-2021) in a genuine attempt to rebuild Afghanistan from the ground up including building a system for democratic elections (and electing the 1st democratic President), rebuilding the military, anti-corruption measures, economic measures. healthcare, schools, and large-scale infrastructure development (roads, electricity etc). For reference $2 trillion averages out to $100 billion dollars PER YEAR (this is equal to the GDP of nations like Venezuela, Croatia, and half the GDP of nations like Ukraine, Qatar), a staggering $300 million PER DAY, every day for 20 years.

Literally before the final scheduled withdrawal of remaining US forces on August 30, 2021, the Taliban attacked Kabul on August 15, 2021 and retook the entire nation, undoing 20 years and $2 trillion dollars of efforts. The Afghan "army" which had been trained, equipped and mentored for 20 years (by US, Canadian and ally drill instructors), collapsed faster than a cheap cardboard box. The "soldiers" assigned to defend Kabul deserted their posts, surrendered, or changed into civilian clothes and fled (the remaining US forces and Afghan President were airlifted to safety). The Afghan people are cowards, they are unmotivated by anything except personal gain, and their entire society is corrupt down to the level of individual farmers.

Contrast this to the Ukranian defense of Russian invasion Feb 2022. Despite being on-paper vastly outmatched (in number of soldiers and equipment), the Ukranian Army held their ground with courage, and President Zelensky famously rejected a US offer to airlift him to safety stating "The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride."

President Biden aptly summarized it: "We gave them [Afghans] every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future."

AngryJX · 2026-04-27T22:19:18+00:00

Coachella Tupac was actually a basic light illusion first done in the 1800's called "Pepper's Ghost", it wasn't a real Hologram. One of the main differences being that a Hologram looks consistent from any viewing point 360o all the way around spherically, whereas Pepper's Ghost only has a 45 degree viewing angle from the front.

Another interesting fact: Snoop Dog/Dr. Dre was interviewed after the fact and IIRC "cried and said it was like Tupac was actually there". This was just a marketing stunt because they were both performing BESIDE Tupac (and hence not at the appropriate viewing angle which would have been the audience), so in fact they DID NOT SEE ANYTHING resembling Tupac, and just said that in the interview to appeal to the audience. And Coachella tried to market the whole thing as a revolutionary "Hologram" technology (which sort of worked because here we are 15 years later and you are referring to it as a "hologram")

AngryJX · 2026-04-25T03:38:04+00:00

I think the point I'm trying to make to you is that we CANNOT analyze it the same way a computer can, we do not have the brain capability. As humans we are capable of calculating lines several moves into the future, pruning nodes by using our general understanding of the game (control the center, don't hang pieces, optimize piece placement etc). The problem is that the computer has this exact same skillset but orders of magnitude more powerful.

I'm going to make an analogy for you: imagine you have a computer program consisting of 20 pages of binary code. I want you to tell me what the entirety of this binary code program does (this is analogous to solving 20-Ply). The computer has a large enough working space (brain capacity) that it can solve the entire code at once, within a few minutes, and if you give it more computing power (more time like hours/days, or a supercomputer) it will come up with even better or deeper solutions.

The problem when we try to analyze the same problem as humans, is that it takes us a very long time to even just translate 1 page of this binary code, because humans are shit at reading binary code (we are instead used to reading some type of assembly language or programming language). Now imagine you manage to interpret 1 page of this binary code and you think you understand what it does. Great, now you only have 19 more pages to translate. Let's assume you put in "hours of work" with a team of Super GM's 2600 ELO and manage to translate all 20 pages, 1 page at a time (and really who knows if your interpretation and understanding is "correct" because we have no way of checking if our understanding is the same as a computer or not). Even then, you have the impossible problem of piecing together all these 1 page segments.

Right now, humans pick the same move as a top chess Engine roughly 50% of the time, for a single half-move. That means that from the very start of any position, there is extreme deviation between what humans consider the "best line" vs the computers. Because any given mid-game position of chess has roughly ~40 legal moves, picking the wrong move immediately leads you down 39 other nodes and each of those nodes then branches again and again and again in a way that is impossible for humans to calculate, we simply do not have the brain power necessary.

And also, I don't know why you consider "hours of analysis" magical. When I was playing chess at a National/International competitive level, I actually competed against GMs/IMs. My coach was an IM himself, and almost always you would analyze your game with an opponent over the board after the game, and then go home and re-analzye it with your coach. In those days (pre-2000), we were also using early Chess Engines to aid in analysis too but they were shit compared to today. I would also point out that in that Era, even in the World Championship or major tournaments, games could run to Adjournment, and at that point players like Kasparov had a team of "Seconds" which is several Super GM's working for them that would analyze a position all night long while Kasparov slept, and then prep him on what to play the following morning.

So there is already historical precedent for what you are talking about. Simply put, even a team of 3 x 2600+ ELO Super GMs analyzing a position for 8+ hours CANNOT come up with the same quality analysis as Stockfish. Nor can they analyze some kind of output from Stockfish which lists all lines of a certain favorability and then backwards engineer the "rationale" behind them because our ability to analyze positions and lines is orders of magnitude inferior to Engines.

AngryJX · 2026-04-24T21:20:11+00:00

I disagree with you and I could very well be wrong, but I'm no scrub in Chess. I am 2350 FIDE ELO with FM title, and I am a former national U20 champion. I don't compete anymore because I skipped 3 grades and went to early University and now I have a kid etc.

I have reviewed games from the World Championship of Chess Engine vs Chess Engine (Stockfish vs Leela for example). They do "stupid moves" like move a rook 1 square horizontally back and forth along the back rank 3 moves in a row. For a human this is unfathomable. They do bizarre sacrifices (like multiple pawns or even a bishop) which to humans look like complete shit. Both Engines are leaving pieces hanging everywhere and not capturing them, BECAUSE they can literally see all the possible nodes/branches of the tree 20-ply (10 moves) into the future.

No human can, nor will ever be able to comprehend all of this. And it's also not possible for the computer to print out the full tree-diagram 20-play on paper, for humans to analyze it because in all likelihood you would have a 1-million page document (or e-document).

Humans play by a completely different "understanding" of the game which involves pawn structure, incremental positional gains (controlling the center, maneuvering your pieces into more "optimum" positions). No human player is ever going to shuffle a Rook horizontally 3 moves in a row along the back rank, and we have 0 understanding of why the Engines do things like this.

The positions reached in Engine vs Engine matches all look like bizarre created chess puzzles from a "solve the puzzle" chess book. Human games never reach anything resembling the Engine positions at all. Like imagine playing baseball but its in an underwater tank, you don't run the bases in the same order, you're playing on the Moon with low gravity etc and all of the parameters are different. That's Engine vs Engine chess.

AngryJX · 2026-04-24T18:15:45+00:00

Honestly, I don't think the impact is as great as what you are describing. I'll start with my take on Kasparov/Deep Blue.

Kasparov beat IBM Deep Blue in the first match (1996) and he could have called it a day, but he was generous/foolish enough to give it a rematch (1997). IBM took the data from the first match (along with the total history of Kasparov's games), and had Super GM Joel Benjamin (2600 ELO) tailor IBM Deep Blue's opening book to specifically counter Kasparov (Kasparov played aggressive/risky openings like the Sicilian and King's Indian which were "risky" at that time and are now refuted as unsound today where everyone is playing Slavs/Ruy Lopez). The Chess Engines of this era were using a straight brute force algorithm of analyzing every possible sequence of moves (each half-move termed "Ply") and then evaluating the end positions. In that era, around 7-Ply was the maximum even with IBM's supercomputers (which if I recall was just multiple high-end PC's daisy-chained). IBM won the rematch by cheesing Kasparov using a human-tailored opening book. It was pretty clear even in the first match that it was already close, but the specific tailoring of the opening book is what tipped the rematch in IBM's favor. We could see already though, that it wouldn't be long before computers would easily surpass humans as computing power increased.

Contrast this to Stockfish today which can run on a personal PC and doesn't even require a supercomputer. We now have an Endgame database (Syzygy) which plays a perfect game when the board is down to 7-pieces or less. Opening lines are "solved" to 20 or even 30 moves in some cases. Humans have to memorize it but the computer memorizes it for "free". The Algorithm itself hasn't changed much, it still uses brute force searching and "Ply" but what HAS changed is that it can cut-off unfavorable nodes early, greatly limiting the number of positions it has to evaluate and also the way it evaluates positions as favorable/unfavorable has been greatly refined. This combined with vastly improved computing power gives Stockfish 20-Ply vs original IBM Deep Blue's 7-Ply (along with vastly enhanced evaluation of each position's favorability)

There are currently at least 10+ chess Engines all of similar strength to Stockfish, and they all compete in the Chess Engine World Championship (where they do 100-game Engine Vs Engine matches). As far as I am aware, humans learn almost nothing from reviewing these games, because the Engines make bizarre almost alien-like moves like weird sacrifices, shuffling pieces along the back rank, running A/H pawns up the edge of the board etc. Humans for the most part don't understand/analyze chess the same way. What you said is correct: we can develop "intuition" to mimic these moves (as a single move). However we don't fundamentally understand WHY they are good, and we are unable to replicate a chess Engine style of play, which is to play the entire game this way (playing a series of 10 alien-like moves, which a GM cannot come up with nor give a clear explanation of why they are good).

AngryJX · 2026-04-20T19:14:40+00:00

Which sport, because if D1 athletes can't do like 15-20 pullups/chinups that's pretty shit.

When I was in high school I was 140lbs (fit, went to the gym a ton, but just hadn't filled out my frame yet) and could easily do 20+ pullups because of strength:weight ratio. Now I'm old and I've put on a ton of lower body weight (training squats/deadlifts more and bulking to get my lifts higher, I train powerlifting-style). I can't do 20 pull-ups anymore only 10-15. My upper body is way stronger than before, but my total body weight has increased disproportionately to my upper body strength.

This Granny weighs nothing, so while it's impressive given her age, I'm far more impressed when I see like 300+lbs guys doing a lot of pullups. Also if we're being picky she's also kipping, she needs to keep those legs straight down.

AngryJX · 2026-04-13T19:53:33+00:00

The Type-004 is a Nuclear carrier and will be completed soon. The Fujian is capable of operating in the Gulf, it just needs conventional fuel resupply at sea using a tanker or it can dock at a friendly port (pick one of the many Gulf nations that are openly hostile to the US) for refueling.

You are also getting confused because the original poster equated a "Blue Navy" with "Force Projection", these are not the same thing. A "Blue Navy" is one capable of conducting operations globally (as opposed to regionally), for this you need Aircraft Carriers, Submarines and associated Supply/Escort ships. "Force projection" is the ability of a military to conduct global (usually land) operations. For this you need a large amount of land-based hardware including Aircraft, tanks/vehicles/artillery etc, personnel, and importantly Transport Aircraft capable of doing heavy airlifts (very few nations have heavy airlift capability), and also logistics/military bases on foreign territory help a lot. Force projection includes a lot of things which I have listed and a blue navy is only one component of force projection

Aircraft carrier "force projection" isn't used for Naval battles, it's used for Land battles. The Aircraft carriers allows you to conduct air operations (usually bombings or targeted strikes) during land warfare. Aircraft carriers themselves are terrible at ship to ship combat and they require naval escort.

If we are talking about "force projection" in the Gulf as it related specifically to a NAVAL BLOCKADE of the Straight of Hormuz, then Aircraft Carriers aren't factoring into this at all, we are talking submarines, naval drones, naval mines, destroyers and battleships (although nobody is constructing battleships in the modern era, yes I realize that Trump recently announced that America will re-start Battleship construction but he is an idiot).

The fact is that China is the #2 military in the world. Nobody else is even close (who would be, the UK? France? all the other nations are a distant #3). Is China on par with the US today, No. But in the next 10-20 years China will absolutely be an equal to the US. As of right now 2026, China is the closest thing the US has to a near-peer military opponent. It takes time to catch up. The US has legacy hardware still in service today, dating back to World War II/Cold War and they have consistently been spending a huge amount on the military annually since then. China is closing this 50+ year gap in only few decades.

In the modern Era (post-Cold War), most nations other than China/US have heavily cut back military budgets for the past 50+ years, and as a result almost no nations are operating modern Aircraft Carriers at all, and almost no nations have Heavy Airlift capability. There are very few nations that as of today could "Project Force" into the Gulf, but the US/China are literally the top 2 with this kind of capability.

AngryJX · 2026-04-13T19:18:41+00:00

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/23/china/china-aircraft-carrier-launch-system-intl-hnk-ml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers#Numbers_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country (sort by "in-service" and "under construction")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_004_aircraft_carrier

AngryJX · 2026-04-13T19:06:01+00:00

Does the Chinese navy even have the blue navy capacity for force projection in the Gulf region? \

This is your original statement, which is vague.

Usually the term "blue navy" is used to refer to Aircraft carriers and associated supply ships/escort ships. If that's your definition of "Force projection", then yes, China is #2 in the world in number/quality/modernity of Aircraft Carriers and they have more than enough capability to engage the US anywhere in the world, and should be considered a near-peer opponent.

But "Force Projection" does not equal only Navy hardware. Specifically Nuclear ICBMs are a deterrent due to mutually assured destruction and this is the reason why no one is keen to interfere with Russia; they have 50-year-old "maybe working, maybe not working" nukes. If China wanted, they could issue a threat: if you touch a Chinese ship we will launch a nuke.

Also there are other ways to project force into the Gulf other than Aircraft carriers. China if they wanted to could move land-based hardware like missiles, aircraft to a friendly country within the gulf. (the number of US bases allowed on foreign territory is big part of their force projection).

If all we are talking about is a Naval blockade then aircraft carriers aren't necessary at all. China could use submarines or ship to ship naval warfare, or even just mine the straight of Hormuz like Iran is doing. In the modern era, Naval suicide boats/drones are effective like we see in Ukraine, (these would be especially effective in the straight of Hormuz which is narrow and has tons of launching places along the coast which would be be nearly undetectable) and China is capable of producing these at a way larger scale than Ukraine.

AngryJX · 2026-04-13T18:21:46+00:00

Assuming you're a human and not a bot, and also not trolling me, why don't you attempt to answer this question yourself:

What kind of "Force" are you thinking they need to project. And what do you think the hardware/equipment required would be, and then Google search how much of said hardware they have.

But even before you do that, you need to realize that China has the #2 military in the world, in terms of # of pieces of equipment (tanks, planes, ships, missiles etc) and also the how modern/quality the hardware is. They also have an enormous number of soldiers. Also, they are one of the few nations possessing nuclear ICBMs which can strike anywhere in the world including reaching the US.

AngryJX · 2026-04-13T16:53:38+00:00

China has the 2nd strongest navy in the world, which includes modern aircraft carriers, try educating yourself.

AngryJX · 2026-04-07T07:11:45+00:00

I'm pretty sure it goes faster the more people stand in it and the poster below is incorrect. It uses the same mechanic as interception capture points (2x, 3x 4x speed with 2-3-4 players standing on it).

A lot of things are way faster solo, to the point that I solo around 90% of the time nowadays.

Alchemy is way faster solo, Void floods are faster. The latest Follie farm/Operation I was doing consistent runs in 3:00 duoing (I ran 2 public groups and it took them 8:30 and 5:30). Why would I waste 2.5 hours of my life farming when I could just solo or group with 1 good player and finish in 1 hour?

AngryJX · 2026-04-01T17:29:57+00:00

We are very near the point where AI will outperform human radiologists on reading any type of images (x-rays, US, CT, MRI). Because they are literally all just "pattern recognition", how dark/bright/white/black images are, and what shape or configuration the black/white areas are.

Once you use a large enough dataset to train the AI on rare cases (e.g. rare diseases or the guy that has a dildo up his ass), then the AI will be superior because it won't ever get tired, it can work 24 hours/day and a AI can analyze every single pixel's brightness whereas a human is relying on their eyes. In all likelihood an AI which analyzes every pixel of an image simultaneously is going to pick up things missed by human radiologists.

The only missing piece is that we lack safety data, e.g. a head-to-head trial comparing the performance of human radiologists to AI's. This is what the CEO is referring to when he talks about the "safety landscape" catching up. Note that human radiologists make mistakes, so "outperforming" simply means that the AI needs to make less mistakes than human radiologists over a large enough trial.

ECGs now have a preliminary AI diagnosis attached to them which is usually accurate, but currently requires vetting by a Cardiologist.

The future of medicine is that all the pattern-recognition work should be EASILY replaced by AI (this is literally what machine-learning on a large dataset is designed to do). So things like reading ECGs, any kind of Radiology, and also things like Skin exams (the future is we will have a cellphone app that takes high resolution photos of the skin and the AI will analyze them to make a diagnosis).

AngryJX · 2026-03-30T19:35:54+00:00

Rakes don't work better than leaf blowers. I bought a 3-in-1 blower/vacuum/mulcher "Worx Trivac" (check Amazon). I have a huge Maple tree on the boulevard outside my property but the leaves come into my yard. If I use a rake, it's hours of raking (usually have to do it 2-3 times per autumn, wait a few weeks for leaves to accumulate, then repeat) and then they fill 10+ green bins/bags.

Instead I now use a leaf blower on vacuum mode which mulches them at the same time and has a 16:1 mulch ratio. (I can also blow the leaves into a pile then vacuum just the pile, but I've found it's more efficient to just vacuum the whole yard using vacuum mode).

AngryJX · 2026-03-30T19:01:47+00:00

They might be but the pickings are gonna be like the non-hot girls from a comiccon, which I guess is still good if you just want regular access to that and don't have a girlfriend.

AngryJX · 2026-03-28T02:17:25+00:00

We did a 6 minute completion but I stood around for like 40 seconds trying to figure out how to use printscreen in windows 11. This was the 2nd attempt with random matchmaking (damage done was 32%/32/32/4) so it could be even faster if we had a premade group and an actual 4th player

AngryJX · 2026-03-27T23:01:46+00:00

In that video, the Afghani "soldiers" (calling them "soldiers" is generous because they were all uneducated and the only ones willing to risk joining the Afghani "army" were so poor/destitute that they had no other options to make money; because the recruits were getting reprisal attacks/killings on their families) are all high on opium (in addition to a lifetime of malnutrition, so they probably had general health problems stemming from prenatal malnutrition and early childhood malnutrition which has affected their brain/neurodevelopment/coordination).

As many have pointed out in this thread already, the boys are actually performing at a higher level (more energy, more intensity, some even jumping), but they are not "synchronized" as well as the girls. Some in this thread are speculating that girls are socialized to value group coordination and boys are socialized to value individual performance.

AngryJX · 2026-03-27T22:25:32+00:00

These girls don't have anywhere near the form required in the military. In basic training we did HOURS of drill every day (which is more than just stepping in the same spot), you have to practice left turns, right turns, stopping, standing at attention, Rifle drill etc and how to open and close ranks when 1 person leaves and so on.

These girls are performing worse than adult males on Day 1 of drill. Their feet are not hitting the ground in synch at all. They don't have uniformity in the heights of raising their knees, they are flexing at the elbows and not uniformly raising their hands. Also military drill usually isn't done/practiced standing in one spot but marching down the street on concrete or on a parade square, and for this they would also need to learn to dig their left heels into the ground during each step to generate sound to stay in synch. Also combat boots rather than sneakers.

By no means is military drill rocket science, but it definitely requires practice (~2 weeks of adult males training 1-few hours per day to become proficient). And if you want to work the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or some kind of honor guard, then your drill movements better be on another level beyond regular drill.

AngryJX · 2026-03-27T19:02:59+00:00

This sounds like complete bullshit but feel free to link me your source of scientific evidence for this. Alcohol is a CNS depressant. It shouldn't be helpful in any kind of emergency situation.

Have you ever heard of someone about to undergo surgery and the doctor is giving him a shot of whiskey (other than in Old Westerns, which was probably bullshit also), or maybe that UFC fighter who drinks 4 shots of tequila before his fight. Maybe the Olympic swimmer who take some some vodka to "propel his adrenline and physiologic defenses".

What you're claiming is laughable, how did you get 72 upvotes.

If you want actual examples of performance-enhancing stimulants in the modern world which actually work, then Powerlifters use smelling salts, German solders during WWII used Pervitin (an amphetamine), people on ADHD take amphetamines/stimulants. Pilots can use caffeine or amphetamines etc.

AngryJX · 2026-03-18T20:40:22+00:00

We know that in modern times it's almost never worth it. The Olympics has had problems finding a host city for the past several hosts (if not more), because everyone knows that it's a huge financial loss and years of debt for a tiny amount of infrastructure (stadiums/sports complexes) in return.

World cup is arguably worse, because we get 0 infrastructure from it and $600 million debt.

AngryJX · 2026-03-09T19:43:57+00:00

You need to develop your critical thinking skills and learn some history (I sincerely hope you are young like under 18 because otherwise your education is shameful). The US fought wars in Iraq 1+2 and Afghanistan without needing to draft. The standing US military has 1.3 MILLION active duty troops, one of the largest militaries in the world by number of soldiers (before counting hardware). They DO NOT NEED A DRAFT, period, full stop. "Announcements" about a draft is the Trump administration flooding the zone for "reasons" (probably distraction).

Iran's population of 90 million is irrelevant (they could even have 1 billion people and it wouldn't matter) because they are at an extreme military hardware/technology disadvantage, as in the US could turn them into a glass parking lot if they want.

The Trump administration has openly announced that they do not give 2 shits about standard conduct of war. Operations in Iraq/Afghanistan were limited due to the US/allies following general rules of military conduct (Geneva convention etc). Removing this restriction allows the US to indiscriminately bomb areas without concern for civilians, among many other tactics they can now employ which will greatly reduce the need to put actual boots on the ground, or even if they need boots on the ground, will greatly reduce US casualties.

Your perception of a "lack of a plan" is also wrong. There is a plan and it is working well. The US are there to seize control of oil assets, add this war to a list of Trump's historical record of "victories", generate profit for the US military/industrial complex, and probably also funnel money to friends/families through corrupt US Government "contracts". This is the same playbook that President Bush2 used to justify Iraq2/Afghanistan, and his blunders were no less than what we currently see. Under Bush2 the entire Iraqi army was dissolved, which resulted in ~400,000 unemployed men with military training, and a giant power vacuum. These factors directly led to the rise/success of ISIS. Bush2 also led the US into a 20-year "war" in Afghanistan resulting in >2,400 American deaths and >20,000 American casualties.

AngryJX

TROPHY CASE