Likely, yes.
There's a caveat here, however.
One who has superior military power can win the war if that is indeed the objective of that force.
Some evidence suggests that both the US policy as well as our unstated policy is not actually to "win the war" in a traditional sense, but to create a new power dynamic that institutes long term security for the region (and vicariously, the US and her allies).
What troops would you mean and what war? Right now in Afghanistan or what? If it is Afghanistan then it would be Terrorism. It started with 9/11 and is being withdrawn from it now. So if this is your answer, your welcome. :) -A CookieMan`
The number of wounded soldiers from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars varies depending on the source and timeframe considered. As of recent estimates, around 50,000 U.S. troops were reported wounded in Iraq and approximately 20,000 in Afghanistan. Additionally, these figures do not account for coalition forces or contractors, which would increase the total number of wounded. The long-term impacts on veterans' health and well-being continue to be a significant concern.
A supporter of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might argue that these military interventions were necessary to combat terrorism, promote democracy, and ensure global security. They would likely emphasize the importance of removing oppressive regimes, which could provide a breeding ground for extremist groups. Additionally, supporters might claim that the wars were integral to protecting U.S. interests and maintaining stability in the Middle East.
the sisadvantages of the war in afghanistan would the one the deaths of the inocent civiliens over 132 000 dead since 2001-2011.And we cant forget the death of all the canadien and american soldiers over 19,629. there is also all the money put in to this war so many people in america are sufering from it and canadas not to far away from it either.Over 444 bilion
I believe you mean the "Jericho" missile. That would be Tony Stark.
A reported conversation between Hannibal and Scipio Africanus, discussing the best general of all times: Hannibal: The best three were Alexander, Pyrrhus, Hannibal, in that order. Scipio: (not mentioned but expecting to be ahead of Hannibal): And what if I hadn't defeated you? Hannibal: Then Hannibal would have been first.
In the book it would be Amarone, but in the movie a nice Chianti.
Hannibal Lecter. In Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal
Sparticus
The character of Hannibal was born in Lithuania in the year 1933. He would be 78 years old if he were alive today.
That honor would probably go to Hannibal Lector, Hannibal the Cannibal, from the book and movie Silence of the Lambs.
Hannibal Hamlin was born on August 27, 1809 and died on July 4, 1891. Hannibal Hamlin would have been 81 years old at the time of death or 205 years old today.
Yes, Hannibal Barca did committee suicide because he was in danger of being extradited to Rome, He would rather die then be captured by Romans.
pakistan
If it is 3 PM in Georgia, the time would be 11:30 PM in Afghanistan.
His name was Hannibal, son of Hamilcar Barca (who was a general in the first punic war). Hannibal is sometimes called the "father of strategy." He led an invasion of the Italian peninsula, crossing over the Alps into northern Italy to wage a campaign that would last for 15 years. During this time he would win three major battles against the Roman legions: Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae.
That would be Hannibal Lecter, M.D.