VIDEO: SOVIET - Afghan War

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Yes, but they don't have a large superpower funding them. It seems to me that most Afgans don't have a problem with American's taking over there country and reforming it...

Of course, I could be wrong...
 
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
We probably learned a lot from the Soviets mistakes, along with having a huge tech lead over them.

I think most of those taliban and bandits who went to afghanistan in 01 to fight our invasion got a rude awakening when B-52s hovered 35,000 over their position for hours on end would periodically drop a 5000 pound bomb through their roof with little to no way to fight back.

 
B

Beowulf

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2001
1,446
0
71
Good video I haven't seen much footage of Massoud before but I know Osama had him killed on Sept. 9th 2001 before 9/11 occured.
 
T

TRUMPHENT

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2001
1,414
0
0
Originally posted by: Beowulf
Good video I haven't seen much footage of Massoud before but I know Osama had him killed on Sept. 9th 2001 before 9/11 occured.
Click to expand...

The video begs the question. Who will be the successful US general that exricates US forces from Iraq ala Dunkirk? Are C5A's equipped with the flares to protect them from landing at Khe San, oops I mean Baghdad? Militarily, a withdrawal can be a great success. Politically, it is an utter admission of defeat.
 
F

fornax

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
6,866
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
We probably learned a lot from the Soviets mistakes, along with having a huge tech lead over them.

I think most of those taliban and bandits who went to afghanistan in 01 to fight our invasion got a rude awakening when B-52s hovered 35,000 over their position for hours on end would periodically drop a 5000 pound bomb through their roof with little to no way to fight back.
Click to expand...

So the Russians didn't have bombers to carpet-bomb militants and civilians alike? Of course they did. But you don't occupy and hold a country with B52s. Much good did they do us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither did our "huge tech lead". Our casualty rate in Iraq is about equal to what the Russians had in Afghanistan when we, the Pakistani, the Chinese, and virtually all Muslim contries were all arming the Taliban. Now imagine if the Russians were as dumb as we were and started supplying Iraqi freedom fighters with all their modern weaponry: SAMs, tank busters, guided missiles, etc. We'll be left with the B52s "hovering" (ha-ha) and bombing everything to oblivion: good TV propaganda, but good for little else.

So I wouldn't feel so superior. Remember the hysterics Dumbsfeld went into when there was some suspicion that modern antitank missiles were used in Iraq? He was pitiful.
 
T

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Aimster
Correct me if I am wrong, but the U.S only controls Kabul Afghanistan. Correct?
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure we're well liked in Afganistan, hence the instance of less deaths of our soliders.
 
C

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: fornax

Our casualty rate in Iraq is about equal to what the Russians had in Afghanistan when we, the Pakistani, the Chinese, and virtually all Muslim contries were all arming the Taliban.
Click to expand...

1. The Russians did not fight the Taliban
2. The Taliban were funded by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, not China, US, and all Muslim countries.

Your timeline is messed up.
 
C

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Those fighting the Russian troops weren't Taliban?
Click to expand...

The Taliban were formed a couple of years after the fall of Soviet-backed Afghanistan in 1992. The Soviets left Afghanistan in early 1989.
 
5150Joker

5150Joker

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2002
5,549
0
71
www.techinferno.com
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: fornax

Our casualty rate in Iraq is about equal to what the Russians had in Afghanistan when we, the Pakistani, the Chinese, and virtually all Muslim contries were all arming the Taliban.
Click to expand...

1. The Russians did not fight the Taliban
2. The Taliban were funded by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, not China, US, and all Muslim countries.

Your timeline is messed up.
Click to expand...


You're just arguing semantics. The Taliban were ex-Mujahadeen fighters and so were the NA fighters along with Osama. And for those wondering, yeah Afghans in general do like Americans but unfortunately America didn't do anything for them after the Soviet war and the only stabilizing force against war lords was the Taliban. If the US had stayed after the Soviet war to help rebuild, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,940
10,277
136
Maybe not 9/11 itself, but something else down the road with different characters involved. The Middle East is full of the ideal of exterminating all infidels, or so they keep telling the world.

Oh, but who am I to believe the preaching?s of suicidal religious zealots. Everything would have been fine and peachy if we bought Afghanistan.
 
A

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Maybe not 9/11 itself, but something else down the road with different characters involved. The Middle East is full of the ideal of exterminating all infidels, or so they keep telling the world.

Oh, but who am I to believe the preaching?s of suicidal religious zealots. Everything would have been fine and peachy if we bought Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I think you lack an understanding of the M.E and the people in the M.E who are by definition usually Muslims.
 
A

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: fornax
Originally posted by: Genx87
We probably learned a lot from the Soviets mistakes, along with having a huge tech lead over them.

I think most of those taliban and bandits who went to afghanistan in 01 to fight our invasion got a rude awakening when B-52s hovered 35,000 over their position for hours on end would periodically drop a 5000 pound bomb through their roof with little to no way to fight back.
Click to expand...

So the Russians didn't have bombers to carpet-bomb militants and civilians alike? Of course they did. But you don't occupy and hold a country with B52s. Much good did they do us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither did our "huge tech lead". Our casualty rate in Iraq is about equal to what the Russians had in Afghanistan when we, the Pakistani, the Chinese, and virtually all Muslim contries were all arming the Taliban. Now imagine if the Russians were as dumb as we were and started supplying Iraqi freedom fighters with all their modern weaponry: SAMs, tank busters, guided missiles, etc. We'll be left with the B52s "hovering" (ha-ha) and bombing everything to oblivion: good TV propaganda, but good for little else.

So I wouldn't feel so superior. Remember the hysterics Dumbsfeld went into when there was some suspicion that modern antitank missiles were used in Iraq? He was pitiful.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of those munitions which were referred to were guided munitions. Hence the obvious example of a bomb coming through their roof, not 50 bombs around their hut.

Duh
 
F

fornax

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
6,866
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87

I think a lot of those munitions which were referred to were guided munitions. Hence the obvious example of a bomb coming through their roof, not 50 bombs around their hut.

Duh
Click to expand...

There's little doubt that a well-planned bombing campaign can do serious damage. But it's useless in the end when the goal is to hold and reform a country. We and our puppets in Afghanistan control just Kabul, a few larger cities, and the areas around the bases. The rest of the country is still under the control of various militant groups, the heroin trade is booming, and there are talks about a resurgence of the Taliban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom