Riots in Afghanistan

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Hangtime
I Love how you keep adding zeros and then jumping the next fence.. and start in with Korea and Vietnam as justification for the alleged lack veracity of the Afgan losses.

I add zeros just mocking people like you and our pro-western imbeciles like the above-mentioned Helsinki group. They don't care about common sence, the worse "bloody commies" will look - the better.

About Korea - please compare the official number of American aircraft losses to the number of rescue helicopter flights.

I used Vietnam/Arlington to show you an attitude to Afghan war here. There is a difference, mostly because in the US people were protesting against killing of the Vietnamese, and here people mostly cared about our boys being killed. But it was a very small war, even compared to your glorious Vietnamese conflict, and there are no "unknown soldiers".

Originally posted by Hangtime
And no: unlike you; I question everything spewed by our media. Since you are unwilling to engage your own brain and consistently place your responses based on Soviet regimes numbers and sources.. well; we are all aware how hopeless it is to get you aknowledge any source that doesn't portray the USSR in anything but a favorable light.

Are you laughing at me? You used the words I wanted to say to you

Again, let me explain. 1989 = no Soviet regime. Agony. Numbers I posted were released in 1991, when agony ended and it was finally possible to say real numbers, without adding zeros to blame Evil Communist Regime (tm).

And there are no other sources except what I posted. Every name is listed, every accident logged. No censorship, no propaganda.

Originally posted by Hangtime
Your last comment regarding 'russian sub-humans' and the 'invincible west' are excellent windows into your commie fogged brain... using Nazi propaganda phraseology to characterize an non-existent western disdain for the toll in lives garnered by the Soviets in Afganistan... well, thats another reason why you and your favored soviet/communist clowns remain marginilized by the 'west'. Spouting pure crap like that tends to unhinge any argument you made above it.

Hang, western propaganda employing Goebbels' agenda is my own idea. Seriously. I discovered this sad fact after reading some books about that genius of propaganda and brainwashing. The only thing that was dropped is one word from "Asian hordes of Jewish bolsheviks". All the rest is the same. If you know something different between Goebbels' inventions and your "kill a commie for your mommie" - please let me know.

Hehe, my small provocation hit the target

Now about commies. Don't you understand that it wasn't you, it was us who were the main victim of bolshevism? I don;t care about commies, i have much more reasons to hate them then you do. But commies saved the country, and they made one great thing that justifies all the Russian history of the XX century: they destroyed nazism. I doubt that it was possible without such an ideology.

I see Communism (a philosophical/social doctrine) as a religion. In some cases it's much better then Christianity. Try to look at this east/west conflict as at a religious war. I can't see any sane reasons for the hatered you show. The guys who shot at you were not "commies", they were just fighting to protect their homes, families and land. Just as my Uncle wasn't fighting for "communist idea", but shot down planes that bombed civilians and were a direct threat to his own life. Sometimes ideological patterns are wrong, following them shows that you use them instead of thinking. So it goes.

[Nilsen]

Opposties cleary attract.

hangtime and boroda sitting in a tree...








Love is in the air

[Dago]

Originally posted by Boroda

Are you laughing at me?

We all are.

[skernsk]

I agree with Boroda 100%.  Hangtime you are just arguing for the sake of arguing,.  IF Boroda said the sky was blue you would argue it is not.  

Find something else to argue about.  Like what acutally sunk the Kursk or if Marco Ramius actually did steal the Red October....

[BGBMAW]

so..if russia was not a commie state..they woudl of lost ww2?

I think the motivation of them being enslaved murdered raped killed was enuff to fight

Hell you saw towns that said..F stalin..hes a bigger deak then hitler..

werent there?

Just seems odd to me..that the biggest reason they won was commie

But commies saved the country, and they made one great thing that justifies all the Russian history of the XX century: they destroyed nazism. I doubt that it was possible without such an ideology.

I disagree..I beleive you had a VERY LARGE HELPING HAND..Called USA

Lend LEase..ect..I havent read many books on what russians were shipping over to USA in convoys?..Planes..tanks?..

This in no way says russians couldnt fight with out USA...russia sacrificed the most

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Boroda
Hang, weren't you the one who doubted 2 million dead Vietnamese?

I only can say that it's the first time when I see anyone questioning Soviet losses numbers. You probably don't undersand what was going on here when this numbers were declared. It was easier to say that we lost 500000 there and everyone probably could believe it. So far even the bonehead anti-soviet imbeciles like Moscow Helsinki group agree that this numbers are correct. It's like saying that it's only 1/10th of all Americans killed in Vietnam are listed on a wall in Arlington.

Hang, Americans speaking that some other side conceals losses is more then funny. Korean air war is a great example. LOL only 79 Sabres lost, while they shot down more MiGs then USSR, DPRK and PRC had there.

And one more thing: there are no Afghani sources on Soviet losses. I hope you understand why. Estimates don't count. Same **** as we have now in Chechnya, they exaggerate 10:1. Every name is known, all are remembered. Keep believing that Russian untermenschen were all killed and your compatriots are invincible.

Calm down Boroda. The reason there was a cold war was to prevent the Soviets from invadeing Western Europe. As things stand today, go ahead and invade, we really don't give a s**t.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
so..if russia was not a commie state..they woudl of lost ww2?

I think the motivation of them being enslaved murdered raped killed was enuff to fight

Hell you saw towns that said..F stalin..hes a bigger deak then hitler..

werent there?

Just seems odd to me..that the biggest reason they won was commie

 
What I meant was that Stalin and commies did the best to prepare to War. In 1927 USSR didn't have almost any industry, over 3/4 of the population was illiterate. What was done in 1927-41 is a miracle. And Soviet people payed a huge price for it.

If you compare Russian participation in WWI and WWII - you'll see the big difference. "Private enterprising" system showed that it was absolutley impotent by 1915. Out of the whole population of the Empire industrial workers were only 1-1.5%, and only government industry was able to do anything for the Army.

Then, in 1917-1920, bolsheviks won a Civil war, collected what was left of the Empire and got rid of separatists and foreign puppets. After Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, when Germans reached Caucasus and annexed Ukraine, with occupational troops landed in Arckangelsk and Vladivostok, with Czech corps fighting their way to the Pacific, several "supreme governments" tearing a country apart - they managed to get the country together again. Unfortunately, they were the only power that could do it

The fact is that the Empire was dieing, and happy liberal thievs from Temporary Government in March-October 1917 only made the things worse

Originally posted by BGBMAW
I disagree..I beleive you had a VERY LARGE HELPING HAND..Called USA

Lend LEase..ect..I havent read many books on what russians were shipping over to USA in convoys?..Planes..tanks?..

This in no way says russians couldnt fight with out USA...russia sacrificed the most

Not only Russians, but Soviets. Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Tatars, Jews, Kazakhs, over 100 nationalities.

I don't see lend-lease as an "assistance". It was a purely commercial trade. Assistance is something that isn't payed for, as we understand it. Different concepts in Russian language. And we payed 3-4 times more for the same equipment then UK did. It's also important that USSR got several times less supplys then the UK.

In your terms - USSR also helped the US to het out of the 1929-1933 crisis, just as US helped USSR to build industry from nothing. Soviet gold did help American industry, it was a really smart decision to start diplomatic relations with the USSR and encourage trade. And some serious part of Russian industry still works on equipment bought in the US before the War.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by weaselsan
Calm down Boroda. The reason there was a cold war was to prevent the Soviets from invadeing Western Europe. As things stand today, go ahead and invade, we really don't give a s**t.

If you seriously believe it - it's a shame. USSR could reach the Atlantic in 1945 in a matter of weeks. Later American government admitted that it's impossible to prevent Soviet Army from taking control over Western Europe, Mediterranian and Middle East, even if "blue" side massively used nulcear weapons against Soviet cities - it could take no more then 6 months.

And it was us who had enemy troops at our borders, not the US. Imaginary threat as an instrument of political influence. It's quite simple and effective. You guys deserve all possible respect, we need to learn from you.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by weaselsan
Calm down Boroda. The reason there was a cold war was to prevent the Soviets from invadeing Western Europe. As things stand today, go ahead and invade, we really don't give a s**t.

Thats good to hear.

[Dago]

Originally posted by Boroda
If you seriously believe it - it's a shame. USSR could reach the Atlantic in 1945 in a matter of weeks. Later American government admitted that it's impossible to prevent Soviet Army from taking control over Western Europe, Mediterranian and Middle East, even if "blue" side massively used nulcear weapons against Soviet cities - it could take no more then 6 months.

And it was us who had enemy troops at our borders, not the US. Imaginary threat as an instrument of political influence. It's quite simple and effective. You guys deserve all possible respect, we need to learn from you.

Germany would have kicked Russias butt if Germany hadn't been fighting a two front war.

The USA would have kicked Russias butt if we wanted, and hadn't been fighting a two front war.

Russia was only fighting a one front war, and weren't really all that impressive at doing that.  Mostly succeeded fighting the Germans due to the harsh winter and the fact that they were willing to throw unlimited amounts of bodies in as cannon fodder.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Dago
Germany would have kicked Russias butt if Germany hadn't been fighting a two front war.

The USA would have kicked Russias butt if we wanted, and hadn't been fighting a two front war.

Russia was only fighting a one front war, and weren't really all that impressive at doing that.  Mostly succeeded fighting the Germans due to the harsh winter and the fact that they were willing to throw unlimited amounts of bodies in as cannon fodder.

Oh, that Russian untermenschen! Anyway, I am happy that your opinions were never tested in real life.

Do you know that USSR had to keep huge forces in the Far East against Japan? Do you know what happened on December 6th 1941? Do you know what happened on August 8th 1945?

"willing to throw unlimited amounts of bodies in as cannon fodder" - another myth. Soviet losses were maybe 20-30% bigger then German and their allies, mostly because of the 1941 catastrophe. Harsh winter? There wasn't anything extraordinary with the weather in, for example, winter 1941. Last winter we had much worse frost then that year. And Russians don't ride white bears or sleep in snow. We are made of the same flesh and blood, frostbites don't check nationality.

[Hap]

Originally posted by Boroda
Do you read books? I feel very uncomfortable when i have nothing to read. Same kind of brain-itching that makes me post here.

2 good political reads over the last 4 years come to mind: Pat Buchanan's Where the Right Went Wrong and Lyndon Baines Johnson: The Master of the Senate by Robert Caro.

They are very different but not to be missed.

Pax,

Hap

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Hap
2 good political reads over the last 4 years come to mind: Pat Buchanan's Where the Right Went Wrong and Lyndon Baines Johnson: The Master of the Senate by Robert Caro.

They are very different but not to be missed.

Thanks, will look if there are Russian translations. I saw some LBJ biography at a store near my home, will check if it is what you advised.

[Brenjen]

Winter hinders long supply routes.

We are all aware of Japan & Russias battles I'm sure.

What happened is what happened & no amount of surmising will change it.

Patton wanted to kick the crap out of the red army & he died in a so called accident.

The Soviet Union was not some angelic society.

The Soviet Union almost certainly has some unknown soldiers from the Afghan conflict, if not, then I know they are lying about their casualties.

Our casualties in Afghanistan are documented.

Our media is privately owned & is free to report whatever BS they feel like reporting.

Our media isn't always correct, like during the invasion of Iraq, the media was reporting supply problems with front line troops, the govt. was saying that was absolutely untrue (of course they would, it's vital for the enemy to not to know your weakness) But,the medias video clearly showed U.S. troops armed with AK's searching a wooded area by the side of a road & their M-16's were slung over their backs. Why would they do that if not because of a lack of ammunition for one & an abundance of ammunition for the other.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Brenjen
Winter hinders long supply routes.

Please try to find longer ground supply routes then in USSR/Russia.

Originally posted by Brenjen
We are all aware of Japan & Russias battles I'm sure.

I am not sure There were two major conflicts, fought by "good" Russian Empire and "evil" USSR. Showed some difference in approach. One is the most shamefull defeat in Russian history, second is a greatest offensive operation in history.

Originally posted by Brenjen
What happened is what happened & no amount of surmising will change it.

 

Agreed. But it isn't a reason to get into the same traps that others discovered 150 years ago. It applys to both our countries.

Originally posted by Brenjen
Patton wanted to kick the crap out of the red army & he died in a so called accident.

IMHO Patton was a lunatic. The film about him is based on Omar Bradley's "Soldier's diary", but Bradley shows Patton as a dangerous lunatic, not as a hero.

Originally posted by Brenjen
The Soviet Union was not some angelic society.

Well said. But I also know that there are no angelic societies at all. I am sure that 90% of people on this board could be absolutely happy in good old USSR.

Originally posted by Brenjen
The Soviet Union almost certainly has some unknown soldiers from the Afghan conflict, if not, then I know they are lying about their casualties.

The document I showed to Hang lists 417 men as missing in action or captured by enemy. Out of 417 - 119 were rescued. This numbers were released in 1991, so the list of rescued or returned POWs may be incomplete.

Out of this 417 some people defected intentionally, mostly Tajiks and Uzbeks, but there were a few Russians too. At least it's what they were forced to say to Western media, I am not going to blame them for it.

Originally posted by Brenjen
Our casualties in Afghanistan are documented.

May I see any detailed report, please? Something like a link i posted. If possible - including people who died of "natural causes" in hospitals.

Originally posted by Brenjen
Our media is privately owned & is free to report whatever BS they feel like reporting.

Same **** here now.

What I hate about "free media" is that it is an environment for spreading terror. There was no terrorism in USSR simply because the news about terrorist attacks couldn't be spread. Rare attempts like 1977 "Armenian" bomb in Moscow subway remained unknown to public, they were reported, but there was no attention specially drawn to them.

Originally posted by Brenjen
Our media isn't always correct, like during the invasion of Iraq, the media was reporting supply problems with front line troops, the govt. was saying that was absolutely untrue (of course they would, it's vital for the enemy to not to know your weakness) But,the medias video clearly showed U.S. troops armed with AK's searching a wooded area by the side of a road & their M-16's were slung over their backs. Why would they do that if not because of a lack of ammunition for one & an abundance of ammunition for the other.

Making such conclusions from a casual TV clips shows that your media environment is very similar to what we had in USSR, I mean - it has all the disadvantages of controlled media combined with disatvantages of free press.

Here we return to original topic. The media is free, but it doesn't want to disturb the audience with some stuff. I don't understand, what's the difference, and does it really matter who controlls media, government or private owners, or journalists themselves?...