Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Topic: War In Afghannistan Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:33 |
Originally posted by DukeC
The Soviets did their best to do that, it was the skill and bravery of the Afghani fighters that defeated them. |
It is not worth arguing with a diletant like you. You better continue discussing ducks, the only topic you are proficient in.
Edited by Sarmat12 - 07-Jul-2007 at 17:33
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
DukeC
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:18 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
I find funny that you might seriously think about Putin's role in it. |
You brought Putin into this discussion, not me.
And I can repeat again that in order to conquer Afghanistan, the Soviet Army should have turned the whole country in a desert and perhaps sent most of the male population older than 12 to the concentration camps or may be stay there for 20 more years.
And this wasn't done. |
The Soviets did their best to do that, it was the skill and bravery of the Afghani fighters that defeated them.
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 16:51 |
I find funny that you might seriously think about Putin's role in it.
And I can repeat again that in order to conquer Afghanistan, the Soviet Army should have turned the whole country in a desert and perhaps sent most of the male population older than 12 to the concentration camps or may be stay there for 20 more years.
And this wasn't done.
Edited by Sarmat12 - 07-Jul-2007 at 16:54
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
DukeC
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 16:22 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
But the best way for you to impress us of course would be a new story from Mr. Litvinenko about "how Putin was involved in creating of gas chambers in Afghanistan etc." |
The chemical weapons were deployed against civilians by helicopter and tactical air not in gas chambers. Not sure why you find that funny.
Edited by DukeC - 07-Jul-2007 at 16:23
|
|
DukeC
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 16:17 |
The schorched policies and repressions were small scale. |
This isn't an honest representation of the war, I'm merely pointing that out.
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 15:42 |
Originally posted by DukeC
Read Spartens post, millions of Afghanis didn't leave the country on a whim, the Soviets behaved in a truly brutal manner in an effort to back up the hopeless communist government they were trying to impose on Afghanistan.
|
So what, what are you trying to prove I didn't see any new points. It is a well known fact that Soviet army behaved brutally in Afghanistan and hundred of thousands of civilians were killed.
Have you discovered this only recently? I'm really sorry for you...
Edited by Sarmat12 - 07-Jul-2007 at 16:06
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
DukeC
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 15:31 |
Read Spartens post, millions of Afghanis didn't leave the country on a whim, the Soviets behaved in a truly brutal manner in an effort to back up the hopeless communist government they were trying to impose on Afghanistan.
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 14:52 |
Originally posted by DukeC
Rewriting history again are we? |
You don't need to remind us that rewriting history is the favorite business of YOURS.
Originally posted by DukeC
The Soviets used chemical weapons and intensive bombing of civilians to depopulate large areas of Afghanistan to deny support for the freedom fighters. |
I didn't write they were not doing this, so your remark is pointless here.
But the best way for you to impress us of course would be a new story from Mr. Litvinenko about "how Putin was involved in creating of gas chambers in Afghanistan etc."
Edited by Sarmat12 - 07-Jul-2007 at 15:37
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
DukeC
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 12:03 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
Only a tiny minority of Afghans participated in the fighting on the Soviet side. Their role and casualties were very insignificant. The schorched policies and repressions were small scale. |
Rewriting history again are we?
The Soviets used chemical weapons and intensive bombing of civilians to depopulate large areas of Afghanistan to deny support for the freedom fighters.
Edited by DukeC - 07-Jul-2007 at 12:03
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 00:12 |
Ethnic Tajiks And uzbeks seem to hate Pakistan with a passion to my understanding, but it seems that the Pashtun majority hardly recognize Pakistan as a seperate country.
That being said I don't believe the war in Afghanistan is lost, not by a long shot. Of course its obvious that victory has by no meants yet been achieved nor is it likely to be in the short run. What the US needs to do is cut its losses in Iraq and move to a containment strategy in the gulf which will allow the US to shift intelligence and military assets to Afghanistan. The US can't win this war decisively but it can slowly wear down the resistance movement through low intensity warfare inside Afghanistan with the help of renewed Pakistani offensives in Waziristan. Of course the US will need to shift its priorities here and provide Mr. Musharraf with the appropriate aid... and incentives. Essentially provide the nation of Pakistan with substantial amounts Economic and military aid.
Edited by Laelius - 03-Jul-2007 at 00:17
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 02:47 |
You should ask the Afghanis themelves. We have been asking that question since day 1.
|
|
think
Baron
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 435
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 00:16 |
Yeh i was just thinking that myself.
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 23:34 |
Originally posted by Sparten
5 Million Afghans did not end up in Pakistan (a country they hated like poison) becoz the Russkies were kind. Scorched earth policies were used by the 40th Army since the beginning. |
I know it's off topic, but why do the Afghans hate Pakistan?
|
Join us.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 07:09 |
5 Million Afghans did not end up in Pakistan (a country they hated like poison) becoz the Russkies were kind. Scorched earth policies were used by the 40th Army since the beginning.
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 22:48 |
Originally posted by malizai_
It is not healthy to make attrition comparisons without the inclusion of Afghan communists in the total Communist losses.
Sarmat12, you seem to impart the impression that the Soviets 'didn't' try scorched earth policies, and massive repression. With all due respect, the 1.5 million Afghans didn't die from malaria, and another 5 million left 'because of the' scorched earth policies in the rural heartlands. To the Soviet's credit they didn't destroy the capital Kabul, that was due to the Muj infighting.
In the end it was a battle of wills. The American situation is quite different, since the Americans are only engaging a very small segment of Afghan population. |
\
Only a tiny minority of Afghans participated in the fighting on the Soviet side. Their role and casualties were very insignificant. The schorched policies and repressions were small scale.
And again in this policies are not equal to military engagments per se. As for the military engagments Soviet army always prevailed, except for several succesful ambushes which were directed against Soviet supply units and not against main field fighitng units.
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
malizai_
Sultan
Alcinous
Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 13:48 |
It is not healthy to make attrition comparisons without the inclusion of Afghan communists in the total Communist losses.
Sarmat12, you seem to impart the impression that the Soviets 'didn't' try scorched earth policies, and massive repression. With all due respect, the 1.5 million Afghans didn't die from malaria, and another 5 million left 'because of the' scorched earth policies in the rural heartlands. To the Soviet's credit they didn't destroy the capital Kabul, that was due to the Muj infighting.
In the end it was a battle of wills. The American situation is quite different, since the Americans are only engaging a very small segment of Afghan population.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 04:11 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
No. It was not a military defeat; the same as Vietnam was not American military defeat.
All the tactical tasks were succesfully performed by the Soviet Army. Some succesful ambushes by Afghan's didn't change the military situation in their favor.
However despite winning the battles, Soviets were not able to win the hearts and minds of Afghans, this is the real reason for the failure of the invasion. Afghanistan could be peacefied only by massive violent repressions with even more millions killed.
Soviet Union didn't want to do it and it simply couldn't afford it. |
Warfare is a political action., and an inherently strategic one. If the milittary fails to accomplish the political mandate and achieve the strategic goals set it then it is a militray defeat no matter whatever gloss you put on it.
|
|
think
Baron
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 435
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 03:19 |
The Soviets lost politically an not conventionally.
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 01:31 |
No. It was not a military defeat; the same as Vietnam was not American military defeat.
All the tactical tasks were succesfully performed by the Soviet Army. Some succesful ambushes by Afghan's didn't change the military situation in their favor.
However despite winning the battles, Soviets were not able to win the hearts and minds of Afghans, this is the real reason for the failure of the invasion. Afghanistan could be peacefied only by massive violent repressions with even more millions killed.
Soviet Union didn't want to do it and it simply couldn't afford it.
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 01:06 |
I disagree they lost at Khost ,a whole Motor Rifle divison was cut off. The fact they inflicted heavier casualties on the Afghans is hardly conclusive, the Axis inflicted 3 times as many casulties on the Allies yet they latter still won. The Soviets failed in their mission, which was to make Afghanistan safe for communism. That was a defeat a militray defeat, militray force failed to achieve the politcal objects set for it.
|
|