Riots in Afghanistan

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Flit
Not much- A heavy vehicle suffered a breakdown ( which probably means he lost his brakes) and caused a accident in which several afghani's were injured and killed.
 Several more were killed after the locals rioted and threw rocks.
I did'nt see anything on al jezzera or the drudge report, so I guess that your local media is focused on the wrong story

Yup, brakes. Anyone whos driven a military duce / 5 ton whatever has probably had the brakes fail or come damm close to it. Steering boxes too.

Reserve units that go active esp, at home they dont get the support regular units get parts wise and the trucks suffer from years of being held together with gum, hope and spit... or parts that some gunny threw together to get it running because the Capt was riding is sphincter.

Some lowly private gets stuck driving a junk heap = international incident. Just lovely.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Hangtime
ROFL!!

...and your observation has nothing whatsoever to do with your continued desire to see the U.S. lose as many troops in Afganistan as Soviets did.... which at the current death rate would be in about (checks calander) 1/2 an eon, or the better part of a forever or two.

1) I don't want American servicemen to die. Seriously.

2) Current death rate in Afghanistan is unknown. Probably because noone cares. It's a great achievement of American free media. Seriously.

3) USSR lost less then 14,000 men in Afghanistan, 1979-89. And the level of involvement was a little bit higher then Americans have now. Also I have to say that Soviet soldiers walked in Kabul unarmed, and there were no crowds shooting at them shouting "death to russkies".

Just saw a news programm on TV in my institute's lobby. They speak about heavy losses by Afghani government troops, at least one batallion completely destroyed by Taliban, no American losses mentioned. Their main topic was the arrival of 200 Ukrainian troops, they are there to train Afghanis with Ukrainian equipment, as if there are not enough locals who know old trusted Soviet stuff better...

[Neubob]

Boroda,

Hvatit, oozhe. Zhisn slishkom karotkiya. V'tvayey strane zhivut samiye krasiviye devushke na svete. Ne oozhele etova ne dastatichna tebya atvelch.

Udache tebye, va vsom...

Shurik

[lazs2]

boroda... if the russian press is so free then why don't you have the number of casualties in afghanistan?   And... if no one cares (as you claim) then why is it a "It's a great achievement of American free media. Seriously."

you can't have it both ways.

I think one of the reasons that civilians did not attack forces of russians in town was that the russians were so much more brutal and prone to brutal retaliation than American troops are.  

lazs

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Neubob
Boroda,

Hvatit, oozhe. Zhisn slishkom karotkiya. V'tvayey strane zhivut samiye krasiviye devushke na svete. Ne oozhele etova ne dastatichna tebya atvelch.

Udache tebye, va vsom...

Shurik

Good point

I see this discussions as good mind games. I mean that men need some other things except vodka and women.

In this case I simply want to see some things from the other side.

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

[Boroda]

Originally posted by lazs2
boroda... if the russian press is so free then why don't you have the number of casualties in afghanistan?   And... if no one cares (as you claim) then why is it a "It's a great achievement of American free media. Seriously."

you can't have it both ways.

Soviet losses in Afghanistan are counted to the last man. I meant losses there after 2001.

Originally posted by lazs2
I think one of the reasons that civilians did not attack forces of russians in town was that the russians were so much more brutal and prone to brutal retaliation than American troops are.  

Russians traditionally were allies of the Afghanistan. I don't remember any of my friends telling stories of gun-fights in Kabul or other big cities.

Russians were acting in Central Asia since mid-XIX century. We have some experience, and Afghani adventure was the worst and stupidest attempt, thanks to our gerontocratic leadership.

General Skobelev said in 1880: "Making humans out of slaves is much more important then all our conquests and glory of the Empire".

[Hangtime]

Brain itches? Scratching yer bellybutton should provide relief.

Economically speaking, the cost of the war varies, according to the varying Soviet figures, but the most agreeable figure is given as $8.2 billion per year. As for casualties, it too is an arguable topic, due to the strict censorship of the Soviet Union. The official 15,000 dead is a gross underestimation. Experts agree that at least 40,000 - 50,000 Soviets lost their lives in action, besides the wounded, suicides, and murders.

http://www.afghan-web.com/history/articles/ussr.html

..and the cost in afgani lives was over two million.

Just another walk in the park for the commies, enh; Boroda?

[Boroda]

Hang, why not 500000? Oh, sorry, it will be almost all servicemen "rotated" there.

One out of ten is an absolutely ridiculous number.

http://www.hro.org/editions/karta/nr24-25/victim.htm

Gives you complete numbers by year, units, nationality etc.

50000 is a number of wounded (53753 to be correct).

Total losses were 14453, this includes Soviet civilian specialists. Army losses were 13833. This is a final exact number. Nothing to argue about here. This numbers also include people who died of "natural" causes, like diseases etc.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Boroda
Hang, why not 500000? Oh, sorry, it will be almost all servicemen "rotated" there.

One out of ten is an absolutely ridiculous number.

http://www.hro.org/editions/karta/nr24-25/victim.htm

Gives you complete numbers by year, units, nationality etc.

50000 is a number of wounded (53753 to be correct).

Total losses were 14453, this includes Soviet civilian specialists. Army losses were 13833. This is a final exact number. Nothing to argue about here. This numbers also include people who died of "natural" causes, like diseases etc.

Horsepucky. You'll note that I used an Afgan source... and that info is even lower than most reliable western sources. Of course, I don't expect you'd ever consider a western source or an Afgan one for that matter as a 'reliable' source. Perhaps credibility is the answer...

... which your 'team' is sorely lacking, comparatively.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Horsepucky. You'll note that I used an Afgan source... and that info is even lower than most reliable western sources. Of course, I don't expect you'd ever consider a western source or an Afgan one for that matter as a 'reliable' source. Perhaps credibility is the answer...

... which your 'team' is sorely lacking, comparatively.

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.

[Hangtime]

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.

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. 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.

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.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Boroda
Good point

I see this discussions as good mind games. I mean that men need some other things except vodka and women.

In this case I simply want to see some things from the other side.

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

I usually read a lot, but there are times when I get lazy and the same brain-itching plagues me.

The annoying thing about these boards, and perhaps the cool thing, is that once you get into a debate, it's hard to let it go without a satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, as I have found, most heated debates end with people undermining each others' credebility with name calling and references to prior statements of questionable reason. Ultimately, opponents wind up labeling each other as insufferable conservatives, stoned hippie liberals or something of the like, and any semblence of intelligent conversation goes out the window.

Sucks, cause when the topics aren't so heated, you really do see quite a bit of intelligence and wisdom here.

[Hangtime]

LOL.. Boroda and I have been lampooning each other fer more years than I can count. We can both be counted upon to fall into the classic 'east vs west' roles that are requistes for our debates... we 'know' each other pretty well; and we're well past being offended by each others diatribes.

which in no way detracts from the insight and accuracy of your statement, Neubob. We never 'settle' anything.. we just rotate subjects.

[lazs2]

boroda... I was talking about loses since 2001.  if the russian press is so accurate and free then why doesn't it have those numbers?  

lazs

[Jackal1]

If the Afghans don`t like the way we drive they should stay off the friggen sidewalk.