The Red Army and the Afghanistan War

333 Helicopters? 147 Jets? That is A LOT! Or perhaps it is something else and I missed the point, but that much destroyed seems too much. (I am referring to the casualities link posted by SpezNas)

Michail

US army sucks great in Vietnam - as always.

Quote:

Soon people will start talking crap that " September 11th was staged! Its part of evil conspircary of US! "

not USA - jew-masons, & you still dont know this?

[sptNz *edit*: Grow up!]

Quote:

US army sucks great in Vietnam - as always.

Any arguments for this? US performed in Vietnam just as USSR performed in Afganistan, not beaten in battle but withdrawn because homefront and politics.

Quote:

Soon people will start talking crap that " September 11th was staged! Its part of evil conspircary of US! "

Roll eyes not USA - jew-masons, & you still dont know this? Roll eyes

You must be joking, right?

Quote:

US army sucks great in Vietnam - as always.

I'll agree with you there. The U.S. Army has never, EVER done well in guerilla warfare. Vietnam was a catastrophe (from a U.S. standpoint), just as the island hopping by the U.S. in the Pacific theater during WWII was. That was the reason the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima...casualties were already mounting from their troop movements within the area due to the guerilla tactics of the Japanese army, and a full blown invasion was seen by the U.S. military and political elite as being too costing, so they took the "easy way out" by dropping the two bombs.

Even take a look at U.S. involvement in Latin America. It was because the U.S. has always been so notoriously bad at guerilla warfare that mercs were used in Bay of Pigs, and monetary and materiel support was given to the right wing "revolutionaries" (e.g. the forces against Arbenz in Guatemala and Pinochet in Chile) instead of sending actual U.S. troops.

Quote:

Vietnam was a catastrophe (from a U.S. standpoint)

Not quite. Vietnam was not military catastrophy, it is hard to suppress foreign fed insurgency if you can't deal with them in roman fashion (kill everybody in the area, starting from civilians).

Quote:

just as the island hopping by the U.S. in the Pacific theater during WWII was.

I peg your pardon? In Iwo Jima and Okinawa, japanese casualties were 3-4 times higher than US casualties.

Quote:

I peg your pardon? In Iwo Jima and Okinawa, japanese casualties were 3-4 times higher than US casualties.

Im am no expert in that part of history, but wasn't that due to air superiority of the US?

Quote:

Quote:
US army sucks great in Vietnam - as always.


Any arguments for this? US performed in Vietnam just as USSR performed in Afganistan, not beaten in battle but withdrawn because homefront and politics.

Wrong logic again.
Because of sucking in Vietnam political problems & "homefront" accured. & then to deal with this "problems" US withdraw from Vietnam, & faked moon landing in order to distract society from this event.

Quote:

Quote:
Soon people will start talking crap that " September 11th was staged! Its part of evil conspircary of US! "

Roll eyes not USA - jew-masons, & you still dont know this? Roll eyes

You must be joking, right?

Little test on IQ:
Ask yourself:
1) WWI starts because of killing of Austrian prince, or Austrian prince was sended to unstable Bulgaria in order to use his death as opportunity to start war against all allies?
2)WWII starts because Poland soldiers attack German radar station, or SS disguised as Poland soldiers imitated attack on their own radar station in order to have opportunity to start war against Poland?
3) War in Iraq was started because of attack in September 11th, or ... ?
My english is disgusting, but you must try...

Quote:

Not quite. Vietnam was not military catastrophy, it is hard to suppress foreign fed insurgency if you can't deal with them in roman fashion (kill everybody in the area, starting from civilians).

But they deal with northern Vietnam people in such fashion but only by aviation, artillery e.t.c.(not by hands of infantry) - many deaths of innocents but little effect in war(against N.V. armed forces).
For example Soviets in Afgan never "kill everybody in the area, starting from civilians".

Quote:

I peg your pardon? In Iwo Jima and Okinawa, japanese casualties were 3-4 times higher than US casualties.

Of course with total superiority in air & artillery(from ships, mortars e.t.c).

Politburo:

Quote:

monetary and materiel support was given to the right wing "revolutionaries" (e.g. the forces against Arbenz in Guatemala and Pinochet in Chile) instead of sending actual U.S. troops.

I thought it was to keep the image that the US doesn't impose its hegemony over the region through force.

ProLetAriy:

Quote:

For example Soviets in Afgan never "kill everybody in the area, starting from civilians".

That's true. However, the biggest mistake (in terms of harm to the Afghani people) was that when the Soviets left the Afghani communist government did begin deploying such tactics, and with the multitude of Soviet equipment they destroyed a great deal of the country and killed a lot of people (I've read about scuds being used to destroy entire villages in the late 1980s -early 1990s.

Quote:

Little test on IQ:
Ask yourself:
1) WWI starts because of killing of Austrian prince, or Austrian prince was sended to unstable Bulgaria in order to use his death as opportunity to start war against all allies?
2)WWII starts because Poland soldiers attack German radar station, or SS disguised as Poland soldiers imitated attack on their own radar station in order to have opportunity to start war against Poland?
3) War in Iraq was started because of attack in September 11th, or ... ?

Interesting logic. Its definitely believeable, considering the Bush administration had plans for Iraq even before he was 'elected'.

This document is quite interesting:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

It describes various plans, many of which have thus far come to pass in real life. In its conclusion the document states:
[quote]"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."quote]
Written in September of 2000!

Nevertheless ProLetAriy, why must you, like so many here, blame everything on the Jews? The events related to US policy are the results of the Neoconservatives within the Bush Administration. Certainly there may be some rich Jews which had interests in Bush's plans and which may have helped to fund his campaign, but there is no logical way you can tell me that they 'run the world and are responsible for everything bad in it' like so many former anti-semites on this site have (most of them, thankfully, are now banned).

Quote:

or Austrian prince was sended to unstable Bulgaria in order to use his death as opportunity to start war against all allies?

........

.....

And Sarajevo is located in current Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Bulgaria....

Focus on the message Carius

Quote:

And Sarajevo is located in current Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Bulgaria....

Yes Bosnia of course - my mistake.

Quote:

Nevertheless ProLetAriy, why must you, like so many here, blame everything on the Jews? The events related to US policy are the results of the Neoconservatives within the Bush Administration. Certainly there may be some rich Jews which had interests in Bush's plans and which may have helped to fund his campaign, but there is no logical way you can tell me that they 'run the world and are responsible for everything bad in it' like so many former anti-semites on this site have (most of them, thankfully, are now banned).

I don't blame "everything on the Jews" - without people vices masons(achtung NOT jews, although most of masons is jews) can't do anything except of direct actions(which they hate because it's revealing their part of the deal). But, they push another people(by economical, political & other forces incliding terror[you know martyrs usually even don't know who pay for terr.act - & they don't care, only thing that important for them it is Idea(kill americans in 9.11. for example)]), so I just admit it. I don't blame them for it. I'm just want that another people knew this - thats all.
What to think or do - it is your choice.

Spetsnaz

Quote:

I peg your pardon? In Iwo Jima and Okinawa, japanese casualties were 3-4 times higher than US casualties.


Im am no expert in that part of history, but wasn't that due to air superiority of the US?

As far as I know, airforces are part of US military forces...

Quote:

As far as I know, airforces are part of US military forces...

Yes of course they are. But what's exactly your point? I mean guerrilla warfare is in the first place small groups versus conventinally organized troops. But the US were both in Japan and in Viet Nam using combined arms. That's no guerrilla wafare that's counter guerrilla to a certain degree.

Real counter guerrilla is possible with special forces only. What the US did in Viet Nam was search and destroy. In others words: "No matter what you find; blast it".

Japanese casualties are really high because a Jap soldier will NEVER surrender, remember that ... just a really few of them have shamfully stop fighting. Even without munitions, a jap keep fighting !

How about now, the US is loosing it in Iraq and seriuosly looks like another vietnam.

The US is not loosing in Iraq. Not in the current situation, they can't provide security in the post-Hussein-dynasty but they are not loosing. Their casualties are now over 2000 men and that's very low if you ask me. It can't be compared with the Viet-Nam conflict; US-losses were much more significant there than in Iraq.

Your claim might be true in the future (I hope so) but it isn't right now.

Quote:

The US is not loosing in Iraq. Not in the current situation, they can't provide security in the post-Hussein-dynasty but they are not loosing. Their casualties are now over 2000 men and that's very low if you ask me. It can't be compared with the Viet-Nam conflict; US-losses were much more significant there than in Iraq.

its not the war in iraq there loosing, its the war at home, the war with the people, the war with the buget.

The only way the US would lose in Iraq was if they lose the fight at home. In that aspect it is much like the Vietnam conflict.

Afghanistan is kind of like Iraq for America. Here are some similarities:
1) Russia is way supperior to Afghanistan; USA - to Iraq
2) They both sent a relatively small amount of forces
3) Afghans and Iraqies are not trained and fight guerilla war
4) They have no offencive, and therefore have no way of winning
Now, the differences:
1) Americans dont really seem to realize that there is no effective way to win against guerilla tactics with out sending more forces.
2) Russians realized that and withdrew
3) Americans went for oil, Russians went for i dont even wanna know what (probably some political bullshit)

(Im talking back in 1988-9) Basically, Russians can walk around Afghanistan, but there is a risk of hostile fighters hiding out in the general population, and no reason to stay so they left. It was not really a defeat, because Russians can do what ever they want with the land, or what ever else Afghans have (which is not much), but is it really worth it? Not really.

Americans in Iraq - stay for oil, and to "liberate" the people (right...). Its all about oil, if it wasnt for the oil they'd probably leave by now. Would they have been defeated? No.

It can also be compared to Vietnam, but only to the extend that in Vietnam - Russians helped the vietnamiese, in Afghan - US helped Afghans. Also, America REALLY did not do good in Nam, it was a massive screw up.

Quote:

Japanese casualties are really high because a Jap soldier will NEVER surrender, remember that ... just a really few of them have shamfully stop fighting. Even without munitions, a jap keep fighting !

... Yeah... what about strategy? training? weapons? They were inferior in all of those aspects to Russians and Americans, and maybe even French.

Quote:

Well? The invincible Red Army wasnt able to defeat resistance fighters.

What are you smoking? If Russia lost in Afghan, then Allies lost WW2, US lost in Iraq, etc... wow, just... wow...

Quote:

Quote:
Those were Afghans who used the missiles, not American.

Would it have made a difference? it's a point and shoot weapon. A mere teenager could use it with efficiency.

Yeah, its somewhat true. Where would they get missiles? Probably China (who copy other's weapons), or USA, cause nobody else can make decent weapons, other then Russia - who for sure would not sell weapons to Afghans.

Quote:

The USSR won every skirmish which it encountered, the only time the rebels scored victories was when they ambushed convoys. I know you'll disagree with this point, if so, I suggest you try and look for a battle in which the Soivets suffered a 'defeat'.

Not really... If an ambushed convoy retreats, its not really a defeat, because the next day infantry/air force comes in and wipes every body out. Or just air support arrives and wipes everybody out. (if they make it on time) Only if everybody in the convoy is killed or captured, and the cargo they might be carrying is captured or restryoed, then it can be considered a defeat. I dont think it really occured alot, if at all.

Quote:

3) Americans went for oil, Russians went for i dont even wanna know what (probably some political bullshit)

1. The United States did not go to Iraq for oil
2. The Soviets went because they felt they had much to lose politically and geopolitically if the communist government of Afghanistan (established before the Soviet intervention) collapsed.

Quote:

(Im talking back in 1988-9) Basically, Russians can walk around Afghanistan, but there is a risk of hostile fighters hiding out in the general population, and no reason to stay so they left.

The Soviets did not have freedom of movement around Afghanistan. Like the Americans there today, they basically barricaded themselves within the cities, and did not come out for fear of rebel attack (the only difference between the situation then and now is that the Americans have allied themselves with the warlords). That the Russians had "no reason to stay" is an absurd statement. Leaving at their southern border an unstable country containing groups that were ethnically tied to Soviet minorities and fanatical anti-Soviet Muslim guerrillas was not a rational decision (Al-Quaida, once holed up in Afghanistan, has played a role in the situation that exists in Chechnya today, for example). The Soviets knew that the communist Afghani government wouldn't last long without their help, but they left anyway, partially because of the internal dissent that resulted from their continual involvement, but more importantly because Gorbachev had made the decision to cozy up with the West, who were diametrically opposed to Soviet interests and thus obviously had a problem with their involvement in Afghanistan.

Quote:

Americans in Iraq - stay for oil, and to "liberate" the people (right...). Its all about oil, if it wasnt for the oil they'd probably leave by now.

A simple cost/benefit analysis would show that oil was not the main motivation for US involvement in Iraq.

In 2003 before the war oil prices were sitting at $25 US a barrel. The estimated cost of the war then was $50 billion. Today this sits at around $200 billion. Iraqi oil production sat around 2 million barrels a day prior to the war (today its slightly less than that). To buy Iraqi oil for one year at 2 million barrels a day would cost $18 250 000 000. Accepting the eventual goal of turning the oil over to the Iraqi government, it simply cannot be argued that oil was the main reason for war. If the occupation is costing $9 billion a month, and Iraq is exporting only 2 million barrels or less, the US is paying $150 a barrel for Iraqi oil. Consider also the risks that the US faced of destabilizing the Middle East, of bankrupting their economy, and of allienating their allies. Oil alone cannot explain US motivations for going to war (unless you accept that the Bush administration was completely and thoroughly coerced and influenced by oil companies, which may be a plausible, although unlikely argument).