the soviet afghan war was a war between afghani funded communists, and the mujahideen (islamist nationalist group). the soviets went to war against the mujahideen in order to help the afghani communist take over afghanistan. they planned many good things for afghanistan just as the u.s. is does for iraq. they planned to teach the women how to read and things of that nature. 25% of the u.s.s.r.'s gdp was going towards the war. the mujahideen were funded and trained by the u.s., pakistan, saudi arabia, and china mainly, with some european countries. the soviets fought for 10 years with only 1 ally and funding communists regimes in nicaragua and greneda. the u.s.s.r.'s economy went downward because of this war. there have been some talks of this happening to the u.s.'s economy in newspapers and online. if the afghan communists and the u.s.s.r. took over afghanistan there would be no taliban and one less country for terrorists to seek a safe haven in.
here are the similarites between the 2 wars:
civil war (after several years - iraqi war)
holy war (islamic loyalists (extremeists) not willing to change)
funding of islamic loyalists (possibly iran funding some terrorists)
do u think the u.s. will take the same path as the u.s.s.r.?
do u think these wars are similar?
No. We have many more allies. Also the usa economy can recover far more easily than any communist nation could, Except for china which uses a capitlistic model for its economy.. If the mujadeen could beat the ussr with determination and preserveance(because I doubt they had as advanced tehc as the ussr) we can beat the extremist. Unfournately the mainstream media keeps stabbing our troops in the back. Thats what happened in vietnam. Its too soon to tell and I know nthing of the subject.
Unfournately the mainstream media keeps stabbing our troops in the back.
Yeah, that's totally why you're losing, and the whole country is in civil war. It has nothing to do with the Bush administration's abysmal handling of the war and Bush himself being an abject, miserable failure.
Dumbass.
Let's recap.
The United States has done the following: topple a tyrant, aid in reconstituting Iraq, and help in rebuilding it. The Marshall Plan didn't begin until three years after Germany fell from a six-year war and took two more years to complete: eleven years from war to reconstruction.
Iraq has had a third as much time.
American success brought on the savagery in Iraq today: Saddam dead, Uday dead, Qusay dead, Zarqawi dead, the deck of cards shredded, constitution endorsed by an enormous majority, parliament seated and legislating on topics no other Arab country would touch, prime minister taking charge, schools and clinics and water and electricity and commerce rising.
Would-be successors see Iraq slipping out of their grasp. And so they attack.
Quote:
Yeah, that's totally why you're losing, and the whole country is in civil war.
Militarily, Vietnam was won. Politically, Vietnam was lost. Remember Walter Cronkite? He saw a tactical victory during the Tet Offensive as a miserable defeat, and reported it as such.
The same is happening in Iraq today, and it's sickening.
Quote:
The same is happening in Iraq today, and it's sickening.
Hey, sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade. Dissent is the heart of the American spirit, and to infer that people not dissent against that which they wish to dissent against is borderline treason.
Also, last I checked, I'm pretty sure 3,000 American troops and untold thousands of German civilians weren't killed during Germany's reconstruction.
Quote:
Also, last I checked, I'm pretty sure 3,000 American troops and untold thousands of German civilians weren't killed during Germany's reconstruction.
I note that you conveniently leave out casualties from actual wartime fighting during WWII.
Quote:
Hey, sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade. Dissent is the heart of the American spirit, and to infer that people not dissent against that which they wish to dissent against is borderline treason.
Leaking out classified military information is much more than dissent (points at the NYT).
Dissent the war? Disagree with it? Fine. But to go out of your way to aid the enemy and endanger American soldiers? That IS treason.
Hey, you're the one that brought up reconstruction phases. According to the powers that be, the actual war's been over for almost 3 years now. We've been in the occupation/reconstruction phase since then, and that's where the lion's share of the casualties have been.
But oh, it's the damned "liberal media"'s fault for saying "Hey, why are Americans dying?" Those BASTARDS. And damn those liberal Republican veteran senators for calling a spade a spade. Those dirty turncoats need to remember which party line they have to relentlessly tow no matter what! How dare they express their own opinion?!
"We have many more allies."
That talk about dropping out and only have 100 troops or 50 troops besides UK.
Quote:
That talk about dropping out and only have 100 troops or 50 troops besides UK.
Wait, what? 50-100 troops? Where'd this come from?
Quote:
But oh, it's the damned "liberal media"'s fault for saying "Hey, why are Americans dying?" Those BASTARDS. And damn those liberal Republican veteran senators for calling a spade a spade. Those dirty turncoats need to remember which party line they have to relentlessly tow no matter what! How dare they express their own opinion?!
Americans are dying, yes. I'm not decrying that. I'm decrying that that - and the violence - is all they're focusing on. It paints a worse picture than it really is.
Oddly enough, the ones who are complaining the most aren't the ones actually fighting.
And for the last time, it's not about towing the party line. It's not about suppressing opinion.
It's about aiding the enemy. Leaking classified military information SPECIFICALLY dealing with terrorist activities still qualifies as treason.
I'm still waiting for these politicians to outline another path to victory. Otherwise, the loss of life is a waste.
Castor when was the last time the mainstream media talked about us doing something good in iraq? And we're all getting off topic here this is about comparing and contrasting iraq to the soviet afghanistan war.
Don't make me bring out the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED picture. God knows it's earning its keep working for Jopn Stewart.
Don't make me keep reminding you that that was requested by the Navy for the purpose of the USS Abraham Lincoln.
It was to signify the end of its 10-month deployment, the longest for a nuclear aircraft carrier in US history.
That things developed the way they did is unfortunate.
Americans are dying, yes. I'm not decrying that. I'm decrying that that - and the violence - is all they're focusing on. It paints a worse picture than it really is.
You keep saying this, even though the Iraq Study Group Report that Bush commissioned and then ignored, contained an entire section on how the Pentagon have been significantly underreporting the scope and scale of violence. There is very little else to focus on because very little else has occurred recently. Reconstruction efforts have stalled due to rampant sectarian violence. The new government is totally ineffective, and the prime minister is a figurehead who exerts very little control over the country. How could they when their Iraqi Army and Police are mostly filled with sectarian xenophobes who rampage around in death squads, dealing out their own deadly brand of vigilante "justice"? The only things that are rising are the violence, the body count, and the United States' bankruptcy.
Leaking out classified military information is much more than dissent (points at the NYT).
The New York Times' job (and, frankly, their moral and patriotic duty to the public) is to investigate the world and report their findings. Perhaps the government should do a better job of secret-keeping from now on. Or, better yet, they should make like a real democracy and be transparent, and not try to hide things from the public they're supposed to be serving. It's also worth mentioning that if it weren't for the media "leaking out classified military information", American soldiers would still be viciously abusing innocent civilians in Abu Ghraib. And, in all likelihood, nobody would be punished for Haditha.
And if you actually think that the only reason the largest, deadliest, best-equipped, best-trained, most expensive military force in the entire world can't get a bunch of ill-trained, ill-equipped, unorganized ragtag terrorists to stop killing each other is because the press occasionally does its job, you need to get your head examined. I mean seriously, these idiots call themselves things like "The Holy Jihad Brigade".
No, this is all due to a total lack of direction and planning at all levels. Even Bush can't tell you what his goal is, let alone how he plans to get there. In fact, I don't think we've heard anything of the sort since his blatantly militaristic appearance on a certain aircraft carrier over three years ago.
Quote:
It's about aiding the enemy. Leaking classified military information SPECIFICALLY dealing with terrorist activities still qualifies as treason.
That's what Bush or whoever did when he didn't like what a spy's husband was saying. And don't say she wasn't on active duty, since that has been disputed, but by outing her they also outed the fake organization she and many other spies supposedly worked for.
I can't think of any NY Times report that outed information that actually put anybody in danger directly. What, is reporting the use of Soviet gulags or torture a threat to U.S. troops? If you say yes, that it makes them look bad and thus threatens them, then by logical extension any negative report is treason, and you have a totalitarian state. After all, the issue is threat to the troops, not legal status of said information, right? If it's legal status, then why should that make threatening troops treason when doing so in a legal way is not?
That business about the mission accomplished banner has a "war with Eurasia" feel to it and I'm pretty certain that's been debunked as a revisionist story and that Bush approved of the banner before some advisors were able to tell him it was a bad idea. But I don't want to bother looking that up.
You clearly tried to label the war as a reconstruction period to compare it with World War 2, then when Castor used the same criteria to point out the death toll, you decided to label those war casualties and didn't bother to reply to Castor calling you on it. That is extremely questionable logic and debating.
Watching a Bush supporter meander through a mile wide net of rationalizations is a fascinating sociological display.
Quote:
Wait, what? 50-100 troops? Where'd this come from?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mul...ce_in_Iraq
More than 100,000 soldiers: US
More than 1,000 soldiers: UK, South Korea, Australia
More than 100 soldiers: Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador, Georgia, Bulgaria, Azerbiajan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Slovakia
Less than 100 soldiers: Czech Republic, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakstan, Hungary, Moldovia, Slovenia
I suggest checking out the book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City", or at least descriptions of it. This book claims things that shocked even me, who didn't think Bush could be this incompetent even in my extreme bias against him.
Oh and Cycle, don't call people "dumbass." You can point out the absurdity more effectively in other ways that relate to the argument rather than the person.
Yes, I think there are lessons to be learned from U.S.S.R. vs. Afghanistan, and it doesn't look like Bush learned them, or much of anything else really. However, I find the use of historical parallels suspicious since people use the same technique to ridiculously call war dissenters a bunch of Neville Chamberlains. These are different wars and the use of historical parallels is usually an entirely interpretive excersize.
Quote:
You keep saying this, even though the Iraq Study Group Report that Bush commissioned and then ignored, contained an entire section on how the Pentagon have been significantly underreporting the scope and scale of violence.
Most of the Iraq Study Group panelists visited Iraq only ONCE, and even then, they didn't venture outside the Green Zone. Considering that the report suggests we 'negotiate with Syria and Iran for peace' removes what little credibility it had. In essence, it suggests nothing but, essentially, defeat. There was not one Military person on the ISG, nor was there anyone in the Military interviewed. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in it.
Give me anything that has been suggested by war critics that doesn't begin and end with "Redeploy or withdraw our troops". Please.
Quote:
The New York Times' job (and, frankly, their moral and patriotic duty to the public) is to investigate the world and report their findings.
When the Center for Media and Public Affairs made a nonpartisan evaluation of network news broadcasts, it found that during the active war against Saddam Hussein, 51% of the reports about the conflict were negative. Six months after the land battle ended, 77% were negative; in the 2004 general election, 89% were negative; by the spring of 2006, 94% were negative. This decline in media support was much faster than during Korea or Vietnam.
Somewhere along the way, the right to dissent somehow became a DUTY to dissent. Can imagine how the reporting during WWII might've been with today's media?
Quote:
It's also worth mentioning that if it weren't for the media "leaking out classified military information", American soldiers would still be viciously abusing innocent civilians in Abu Ghraib. And, in all likelihood, nobody would be punished for Haditha.
The military was already taking care of the soldiers responsible for Abu Ghraib's "torture" (standing up for long periods of time? Playing music really loudly? Sleep deprivation? Sitting in uncomfortable positions? That's "torture"?? And this is from Janis Karpinski! The officer directly responsible for Abu Ghraib, who couldn't bring herself to even visit the prison, much less insist on military discipline, and she blames her failure on somebody else!). The media blew the whole situation up and made more enemies out of it. Also, the Haditha incident has been mismanaged (perhaps intentionally) by the NCIS. Apparently, "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to US soldiers.
Quote:
And if you actually think that the only reason the largest, deadliest, best-equipped, best-trained, most expensive military force in the entire world can't get a bunch of ill-trained, ill-equipped, unorganized ragtag terrorists to stop killing each other is because the press occasionally does its job, you need to get your head examined.
No. Like in every war, things don't go exactly as planned. To try and PLAN a war down to the very end is a futile exercise, because there will be uncontrollable events that will occur. Does that mean we should stop when the going gets rough? No.
Would I have liked for a greater military presence? Heck yes. Less politically correct ROE? Absolutely. More pressure on Iran and Syria? No doubt.
But what purpose does the constant hamstringing by the media and the cut-and-run politicians serve, other than to demoralize the troops and embolden the enemy?
Nothing.
Quote:
Give me anything that has been suggested by war critics that doesn't begin and end with "Redeploy or withdraw our troops". Please.
Give me a pro-war suggestion that doesn't involve having a war. Do you catch my point that you're asking for an oxymoron?
Quote:
Can imagine how the reporting during WWII might've been with today's media?
There was plenty of anti-war sentiment in the U.S. That's why they needed Pearl Harbor to get into the war, and the neo-cons needed 9-11 and said as much themselves to attack Iraq. Maybe WW2 was won because of craziness like competency or not basing most of your policy on nepotism.
Quote:
Give me a pro-war suggestion that doesn't involve having a war. Do you catch my point that you're asking for an oxymoron?
Did you catch my point that what I'm asking for is victory (and that they're not presenting anything of the sort)?
Quote:
There was plenty of anti-war sentiment in the U.S. That's why they needed Pearl Harbor to get into the war
What about after Pearl Harbor? Was the anti-war sentiment as strong?
Quote:
and the neo-cons needed 9-11 and said as much themselves to attack Iraq.
Source please.
Quote:
Maybe WW2 was won because of craziness like competency or not basing most of your policy on nepotism.
And not having almost everyone trying to undermine us every step of the way. Here's a hypothetical look at today's news coverage...if it had been during WWII.
December 1941. Though the press supports America's going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor, several editorials want to know why we didn't prevent the attack by selling Japan more oil. Others criticize us for going to war with two nations that had never attacked us, Germany and Italy.
October 1942. The New York Times runs an exclusive story about the British effort to decipher German messages at a hidden site at Bletchley Park in England. One op-ed writer criticizes this move, quoting Henry Stimson's statement that gentlemen do not read one another's mail. Because the Bletchley Park code-cracking helped us find German submarines before they attacked, successful U-boat attacks increased once the Germans, knowing of the program, changed their code.
January 1943. After President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill call for the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, several newspapers criticize them for having closed the door to a negotiated settlement. The press quotes several senators complaining that the unconditional surrender policy would harm the peace process.
May 1943. A big-city newspaper reveals the existence of the Manhattan Project and its effort to build atomic weapons. In these stories, several distinguished scientists lament the creation of such a terrible weapon. After Gen. Leslie Groves testifies before a congressional committee, the press lambasts him for wasting money, ignoring scientific opinion, and imperiling the environment by building plants at Hanford and Oak Ridge.
December 1944. The German counterattack against the Allies in the Ardennes yields heavy American losses in the Battle of the Bulge. The press gives splashy coverage to many politicians' assertions that the war cannot be won. A member of the House, a former Marine, urges that our troops be sent to Okinawa.
August 1945. After President Truman authorizes dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, many newspapers urge his impeachment.
That's how ridiculous it is today.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor."
a conflict in any country can be bloody and can last several years the government should look at several civil wars that have gone by including the soviet-afghan war as an example. the soviet union (the second most powerful country, a super power) could'nt take down a force with the help of one minor ally. the u.s.s.r. had so much resources oil, natural gas and other resources that can support a war. but after a decade could'nt take a bunch of opposing forces down. the government should take not only this war but civil wars such as the spanish civil war, the greek civil war, korean war, the angolan civil war and the vietnam war as lessons.
Before someone compares the Soviet invasion of Afganistan to the US led conflict in Iraq they had better read up on the situation.
The combined US and Saudi support for the Mujahadeen in Afganistan was in excess of a billion dollars at it's peak. Every dollar we spent the Saudi's matched.
We did the same thing to the Soviets in Afganistan that they did to us in Vietnam.
The lesson is that an insurgency can make a superpower back off, IF AND ONLY IF they are backed by another superpower. Remember that in both Vietnam and Afganistan the kill to loss ratio greatly favored the superpower.
Right now no superpower is backing the terrorists in Iraq as a part of national policy. Iran and Syria almost for sure, but neither qualifies as a world superpower.
While the terrorists in Iraq are drawn from the world over the same way the Mujahadeen in Afganistan were, they are not backed by the Pakistani ISI and American CIA.
There are some similarities, but the conflicts are not totally equivalent.
Jimro
I missed you Jimmy. :3
~Tobe
"The lesson is that an insurgency can make a superpower back off, IF AND ONLY IF they are backed by another superpower. Remember that in both Vietnam and Afganistan the kill to loss ratio greatly favored the superpower."
the guns that are carried by people in afghanistan were
given to them by a superpower during the soviet afghan war.
heres a dumb idea but can be true, maybe one of the civil
war combatants are being given weapons by someone from al
qaeida and al qaedia maybe getting these weapons from a
bunch of the u.s.'s enemies. such as n. korea & iran and
other middle eastern countries funding them as well because
the u.s. backs israel. so they could recieve funding from
n. africa, and some countries in the middle east. this
could make up for the superpower vs. superpower. its just a
conspiracy idea.
A thought came to me.
If pulling out of Iraq would stop the violence (according to the Democrats), why don't they pull all the police out of Central Los Angeles?
What the heck, maybe they think that will get rid of the gangs.
If pulling out of Iraq would stop the violence (according to the Democrats)
So, what you're saying is this:
Quote:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Disapproving of the decision of the president announced on 10 January 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that:
1. Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honourably in Iraq; and
2. Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W Bush announced on 10 January 10 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
really means "we want to pull every man out because it will magically stop the violence."
why don't they pull all the police out of Central Los Angeles?
Baghdad is not LA. Soldiers are not police officers.
Just to clarify, I'm speaking of the whole 'get out now!' crowd in general.
I'm just wondering though. The troops are already being deployed there. Iraqi and Coalition forces are roaring through Baghdad. Insurgent attacks are down. al-Sadr has fled to Iran. And Congress picks NOW to say this?
I mean, this "non-binding" resolution is just that: non-binding. Ooh, President Bush! We're CRITICIZING your decisions!
So what else is new?
Quote:
Soldiers are not police officers.
Tell that to the UN.
u.k. is pulling out O:
Just to clarify, I'm speaking of the whole 'get out now!' crowd in general.
If that's the case, why did you say "the Democrats" both in this thread and the other?
What can I say? The majority of them have been favoring a strategy to get out of Iraq before the job's done.
Please cite your sources, as I am currently unaware of any "majority" of Democrats who think that "pulling out of Iraq would stop the violence".
The UK is scaling back, not pulling out. Leaving 5,500 troops still in the Basra region is still a significant presence.
Jimro
