Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-09-2013, 08:27 AM
Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
Did the Soviets (sometimes confused with Russia by the einsteins of the forum) lose in Afghanistan?

Did the US lose in Vietnam?
Find all posts by this user
22-09-2013, 06:26 PM
RE: Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
Ahh, the ever successful post structure of "I'm going ask some questions that have some nuances to them, are interesting in their own right, but don't really matter. I'm not going to state my opinion. Instead I'm going to wait until someone else states an opinion then I'm going to call them an idiot."

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
23-09-2013, 02:19 AM
RE: Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
I&I, you're an idiot.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
23-09-2013, 06:06 AM
RE: Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
(22-09-2013 06:26 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Ahh, the ever successful post structure of "I'm going ask some questions that have some nuances to them, are interesting in their own right, but don't really matter. I'm not going to state my opinion. Instead I'm going to wait until someone else states an opinion then I'm going to call them an idiot."

Simple questions.
Find all posts by this user
23-09-2013, 06:35 AM
RE: Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
(22-09-2013 08:27 AM)I and I Wrote:  Did the Soviets (sometimes confused with Russia by the einsteins of the forum) lose in Afghanistan?

Did the US lose in Vietnam?

In basic: Yes in both cases. The strategic objectives of holding the regions under their influence and suppressing insurgents were not only not met, but failed: In both cases this caused global strategic changes with the Soviets losing Afghanistan pretty much to the West and the West losing the south of Vietnam pretty much to the Soviets.
Not only did they lose due to strategic failure, they also lost more men than necessary (lets face it, neither conflict was necessary), both wars caused significant civilian casualties and both cost a fair bundle to both sides in both cases (the Soviets loved throwing money around the the North Vietnamese and the Viet Kong in Vietnam and it's own army in Afghanistan and the US was spewing cash in the form of equipment to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and it's own forces later in Vietnam.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
23-09-2013, 06:54 AM
RE: Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
(23-09-2013 06:35 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(22-09-2013 08:27 AM)I and I Wrote:  Did the Soviets (sometimes confused with Russia by the einsteins of the forum) lose in Afghanistan?

Did the US lose in Vietnam?

In basic: Yes in both cases. The strategic objectives of holding the regions under their influence and suppressing insurgents were not only not met, but failed: In both cases this caused global strategic changes with the Soviets losing Afghanistan pretty much to the West and the West losing the south of Vietnam pretty much to the Soviets.
Not only did they lose due to strategic failure, they also lost more men than necessary (lets face it, neither conflict was necessary), both wars caused significant civilian casualties and both cost a fair bundle to both sides in both cases (the Soviets loved throwing money around the the North Vietnamese and the Viet Kong in Vietnam and it's own army in Afghanistan and the US was spewing cash in the form of equipment to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and it's own forces later in Vietnam.

I agree. However according to the forum you started to get conspiracy crazy towards the end of your comment. Only conspiracy nuts believe the US ever funded alqaeda. Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
23-09-2013, 08:35 AM
RE: Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
(23-09-2013 06:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(23-09-2013 06:35 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  In basic: Yes in both cases. The strategic objectives of holding the regions under their influence and suppressing insurgents were not only not met, but failed: In both cases this caused global strategic changes with the Soviets losing Afghanistan pretty much to the West and the West losing the south of Vietnam pretty much to the Soviets.
Not only did they lose due to strategic failure, they also lost more men than necessary (lets face it, neither conflict was necessary), both wars caused significant civilian casualties and both cost a fair bundle to both sides in both cases (the Soviets loved throwing money around the the North Vietnamese and the Viet Kong in Vietnam and it's own army in Afghanistan and the US was spewing cash in the form of equipment to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and it's own forces later in Vietnam.

I agree. However according to the forum you started to get conspiracy crazy towards the end of your comment. Only conspiracy nuts believe the US ever funded alqaeda. Rolleyes

The US sent weapons to the Mujahideen, which then distributed arms and equipment throughout the generally warlord operated tribe-cells, any weapons that were supplied to the cell Bin Laden operated in that eventually mutated into Al-Qaeda were sent by happen-stance and by the decision of Mujahideen command, and besides, weapons were being sent long before Al-Qaeda even existed (it was formed in 1988, a year before the wars end and Soviet withdrawal).

Besides, if you want to talk about weapon shipments in support of the Mujahideen Insurgents, perhaps you should also be making note that Egypt sent their dated weapons to the Muja while they were going through rearmament, Turkey sent a big chunk of their WWII stockpiles, the British provided Blowpipe missiles and the Swiss sent Oerlikon AA guns and the Chinese supplied most of the useful weapons to the Mujahideen as per their history of guerrilla warfare and the recent Sino-Soviet Split. The worst the US did was send Stinger units and trained Mujahideen to use them, they cut off all funding and weapons the minute the Soviets had withdrawn.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
23-09-2013, 09:36 AM
RE: Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
(23-09-2013 06:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  I agree. However according to the forum you started to get conspiracy crazy towards the end of your comment. Only conspiracy nuts believe the US ever funded alqaeda. Rolleyes

"According to the forum", eh?

Do you have a single citation to back that up?

This is one of your precious little "confusing dreams with reality" things again, isn't it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
23-09-2013, 07:20 PM
RE: Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
(23-09-2013 08:35 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(23-09-2013 06:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  I agree. However according to the forum you started to get conspiracy crazy towards the end of your comment. Only conspiracy nuts believe the US ever funded alqaeda. Rolleyes

The US sent weapons to the Mujahideen, which then distributed arms and equipment throughout the generally warlord operated tribe-cells, any weapons that were supplied to the cell Bin Laden operated in that eventually mutated into Al-Qaeda were sent by happen-stance and by the decision of Mujahideen command, and besides, weapons were being sent long before Al-Qaeda even existed (it was formed in 1988, a year before the wars end and Soviet withdrawal).

Besides, if you want to talk about weapon shipments in support of the Mujahideen Insurgents, perhaps you should also be making note that Egypt sent their dated weapons to the Muja while they were going through rearmament, Turkey sent a big chunk of their WWII stockpiles, the British provided Blowpipe missiles and the Swiss sent Oerlikon AA guns and the Chinese supplied most of the useful weapons to the Mujahideen as per their history of guerrilla warfare and the recent Sino-Soviet Split. The worst the US did was send Stinger units and trained Mujahideen to use them, they cut off all funding and weapons the minute the Soviets had withdrawn.

So you are differentiating "mujahadeen" from "alqaeda". Do you have any sources to back this differentiation up? Look at the word Mujahadeen, it is a general term that is used to describe fighters in a struggle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

You were under the impression that "mujahideen" was a fighting force distinct from alqaeda? According to the definition it is an all encompassing term describing all fighters in a struggle.

You also stated that the minute that soviets withdrew the US funding stopped. This is total bullshit, the people that came to power in afghanistan visited washington many times and did business with the US.
Find all posts by this user
23-09-2013, 07:53 PM
RE: Soviets vs Afghans and U.S. vs Vietnam.
(23-09-2013 07:20 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you are differentiating "mujahadeen" from "alqaeda". Do you have any sources to back this differentiation up? Look at the word Mujahadeen, it is a general term that is used to describe fighters in a struggle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

This may have escaped your notice, but you just answered yourself.

Mujahideen means "fighters in a struggle". Al-Qaeda does not mean "fighters in a struggle". Looks like it's possible to differentiate them!

(23-09-2013 07:20 PM)I and I Wrote:  You were under the impression that "mujahideen" was a fighting force distinct from alqaeda? According to the definition it is an all encompassing term describing all fighters in a struggle.

Sure. Is Al-Qaeda an all-encompassing term describing all fighters in a struggle?

(hint: no)

They're not synonymous, then, now are they?

(23-09-2013 07:20 PM)I and I Wrote:  You also stated that the minute that soviets withdrew the US funding stopped. This is total bullshit, the people that came to power in afghanistan visited washington many times and did business with the US.

Actually, he didn't say that. So inconvenient, isn't it? You can't even address your mischaracterised strawmen very well, let alone what anyone actually says.

The people that came to power in Afghanistan were called the Taliban. You may notice how that is a different word. The United States interacted with them in their capacity as a national government.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: