Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on January 13, 2006, 08:08:01 PM
-
Let's hope...
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1504096
Jan. 13, 2006 — Today, according to Pakistani military sources, U.S. aircraft attacked a compound known to be frequented by high level al Qaeda operatives. Pakistani officials tell ABC News that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, may have been among them.
U.S. intelligence for the last few days indicated that Zawahiri might be in the location or about to arrive, although there is still no confirmation from U.S. officials that he was among the victims.
The attack took place early this morning Pakistan time in a small village a few miles from the border with Afghanistan.
Villagers described seeing an unmanned plane circling the area for the last few days and then bombs falling in the early morning darkness.
Eighteen people were killed, according to the villagers who said women and children were among the fatalities.
But Pakistani officials tell ABC News that five of those killed were high-level al Qaeda figures, and their bodies are now undergoing forensic tests for positive identification.
Officials say Zawahiri was known to have used safe houses in this area last winter and was believed to be in the area again this winter.
Zawahiri, who appeared just last week in a new videotaped message, had increasingly been taking the operational reins of al Qaeda, and is thought by U.S. officials to be the current true mastermind of the terrorist group.
Pakistani officials tell ABC News that the bodies of the five suspected al Qaeda figures will be recovered at first light in Pakistan, but it will still take a day or two for any kind of positive identification. U.S. officials in Washington did not comment.
-
I was watching the local news on this. They spent 2 minutes talking about who he was, and the rest of the time talking about all the inocent villagers we slaughtered.:huh
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I was watching the local news on this. They spent 2 minutes talking about who he was, and the rest of the time talking about all the inocent villagers we slaughtered.:huh
well the villagers had nothing going for them anyway but this is a step forward in the war on terror becuase we might have prevented another attack
-
hope he took shrapnel through the gut and lay in the rubble for a few hours.
-
well I rhink they said they used a hellfire so that probaly just collapsed the building so I'm sure he probaly suffered for about a hour or so with his guts hanging out of his chest from shrapnel:t :aok
-
I saw a report that up to 10 missles were used.
-
It's always some story like this to keep the morale of the public boosted. "Oh looky here, we killed the "#2" guy, throw some more money at us" While i support the troops that are doing what they can there (lord knows i'd hate to be in their shoes) the media and government (mostly media) make such a big frickin deal out of it. Seems like the #3 guy has been "killed" a couple times already. They just keep coming, solution: massive x-rays to kill all their sexual organs so no more reproduction.
-
Or we can hand them blankets that are covered with small pox..oh wait, we've already done that to the Indians. Never mind.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Or we can hand them blankets that are covered with small pox..oh wait, we've already done that to the Indians. Never mind.
ack-ack
Actually that was the British Army (1760)
No offence Beet1e.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
It's always some story like this to keep the morale of the public boosted. "Oh looky here, we killed the "#2" guy, throw some more money at us" While i support the troops that are doing what they can there (lord knows i'd hate to be in their shoes) the media and government (mostly media) make such a big frickin deal out of it. Seems like the #3 guy has been "killed" a couple times already. They just keep coming, solution: massive x-rays to kill all their sexual organs so no more reproduction.
quoting tele shows now eh? I saw him too, he's looking old eh?
gonna mention the McD's comparision?
ps
if true, its a huge deal
whoever popped the scum
-
Are you considering we build eleventy billion McD's in the middle east and kill them slowly, eventually leading to total heart failure? Now you are thinking Eagler!
-
-
Situations like this always end up in the following scenario:
The U.S. is a hero (They get the man)
The U.S. are nothing but war criminals (They didn't get their man)
OTOH if we do nothing, and terrorists continue to scour the earth.
Turns out in this case, he was not among the dead.
-
My local media outlet kept zooming in on the dead cow. We tend to be animal lovers up so so now Bush kills cows, what a bastard he is.....
Hang tight Rip, I dont trust the pakis....the CIA will need to do a DNA analysis on some charred remains before claiming success or failure.
In any event sounds like some bad guys were smoked.
-
Yessiree, another blow against the shadowy terrorists. Or maybe 20 dead women and children whose fathers, sons and brothers will be more than willing to join in to fight the great satan for murdering thier loved ones. We went in and beat back saddams army, launched a massive manhunt and finally pulled his arse out of a possom hole so he could stand trial, and we cant go in and take this guy alive or at least make some effort to do so?. Gimee a fricken break. Why the different methods?:huh
-
Well, aint that something. 18 innocent people murdered by the CIA. Just a case of mistaken identity. Oh well, maybe we should use a nuke just in case hes within 50 miles:mad:
-
Sum of all fears?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Yessiree, another blow against the shadowy terrorists. Or maybe 20 dead women and children whose fathers, sons and brothers will be more than willing to join in to fight the great satan for murdering thier loved ones.
Orrr it can be loooked at like
20 dead men (Im sure there wre probably men among them) Women and children who wouldnt have hessitated to lop off the heads or cut the throats of any american or westerner for that matter if they had nothing more and no other reasonthen the oppotunity to do so.
OR as we say on earth
Sey la vie
War is a dirty thing. there is no clean way to wage it.
I wish we'd stop trying.
Had we. we'd probably be much farther along
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Oh well, maybe we should use a nuke just in case hes within 50 miles:mad:
after the next terror attack on US soil, we probably will....may even have to..
my question is why didnt slick take him out back in 98 when they had OBL dead in their sights?
maybe he didn't want more bad press in the middle of his bad press??
he could have possibly stopped the entire thing dead in its tracks if he wouldn't have been such a sleezy chicken****e
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I was watching the local news on this. They spent 2 minutes talking about who he was, and the rest of the time talking about all the inocent villagers we slaughtered.:huh
Yes, it's totally different from barbaric bombings of US-sponsored terrorist training camps and convoys at Pakistani border during Afghan war made by Soviet Air Force.
Every stick has two ends.
-
yep
we didn't know how good we had it with weak arse russia controlling the crazies over there ... same with Iraq
should have left well enough alone .. darn Reagan, what was he thinking? :)
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Well, aint that something. 18 innocent people murdered by the CIA. Just a case of mistaken identity. Oh well, maybe we should use a nuke just in case hes within 50 miles:mad:
They weren't really that innocent the terrorist would have persuaded the women to blow themselves up near some U.S. Troops and The Children were gonna be future terrorist:aok
-
Originally posted by Eagler
yep
we didn't know how good we had it with weak arse russia controlling the crazies over there ... same with Iraq
should have left well enough alone .. darn Reagan, what was he thinking? :)
Well, 40th Army did much better in Afghanistan then all king's men do in Iraq.
We had 3 times less troops in Afghanistan then US has in Iraq, and Afghanistan is two times bigger and has population two times more then Iraq has. And it has mountains instead of desert.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, 40th Army did much better in Afghanistan then all king's men do in Iraq.
We had 3 times less troops in Afghanistan then US has in Iraq, and Afghanistan is two times bigger and has population two times more then Iraq has. And it has mountains instead of desert.
except you lost..
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, 40th Army did much better in Afghanistan then all king's men do in Iraq.
We had 3 times less troops in Afghanistan then US has in Iraq, and Afghanistan is two times bigger and has population two times more then Iraq has. And it has mountains instead of desert.
Well that was then this is now times have changed there are more terrorist and more weapons we had to fight the T72s Russia gave saddam plus countless insurgents
-
Villagers described seeing an unmanned plane circling the area for the last few days....
Not that that would have given the game away now would it? You think the second most wanted man on the planet is going to linger in an area once the UAVs show up?
-
why would you trust the word of villagers?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
except you lost..
may i ask, and what would be a win situation ?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, 40th Army did much better in Afghanistan then all king's men do in Iraq.
We had 3 times less troops in Afghanistan then US has in Iraq, and Afghanistan is two times bigger and has population two times more then Iraq has. And it has mountains instead of desert.
I wonder how the US was able to be successful in Afghanistan, while you guys got your arse handed to you? I'm pretty sure we have less troops than you did.
We have lost just over 2000 people in Iraq since we invaded, so it's not like we are getting are arses handed to us like you guys did in Afghanistan. How many did you lose again?
I thought that military experts said that the USSR could take over Europe and the Middle east in a few weeks? I guess Afghanistan is stronger than Europe and the Middle East combined.......how else could you have lost?
You guys screwed up almost everything you touched.
-
Just heard on the radio that #2 was not among those killed by the bombing.
-
I thought that military experts said that the USSR could take over Europe and the Middle east in a few weeks? I guess Afghanistan is stronger than Europe and the Middle East combined.......how else could you have lost?
No. If you set the nuke issue aside, Russia never had the ability to project power. I.E. They couldn't take their armies half way across the world.
-
But ... I liked Number 2:
(http://images.hollywood.com/images/large/l_1110260.jpg)
-
Right after 9/11, I was amazed at the emotions of the Americans. Lot's of fire....rebuild intel, strengthen the military. These are the tools that keep us safe.
I used to say, "After a few years go by with no terrorist activity, please remember the emotions of 9/11". I knew that the liberal underbelly would slowly turn us into terrorists ourselves, and we'd begin the slow demise of intel and military again.
It's happening, just as I feared.
If you favor stopping the efforts, if you favor weakening military and intel, please don't weigh in when it happens on US soil again.
I am unsure why so many Americans feel the need to tear down America.
As for the foreigners posting here, I appreciate their opinions. I hope they influence their own governments to their way of thinking, but don't come crying to the US when your bellybutton is in a sling.
I think we have done enough to bail Europe out of trouble already. Just honor the Americans buried or lost on your soil.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Orrr it can be loooked at like
20 dead men (Im sure there wre probably men among them) Women and children who wouldnt have hessitated to lop off the heads or cut the throats of any american or westerner for that matter if they had nothing more and no other reasonthen the oppotunity to do so.
OR as we say on earth
Sey la vie
War is a dirty thing. there is no clean way to wage it.
I wish we'd stop trying.
Had we. we'd probably be much farther along
Wow. Thats got to be the stoopidest thing I have ever read in my life.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
They weren't really that innocent the terrorist would have persuaded the women to blow themselves up near some U.S. Troops and The Children were gonna be future terrorist:aok
My god. Is there any fricken wonder why? Its called self defense.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Just heard on the radio that #2 was not among those killed by the bombing.
Oh, but dont worry. We can assume anybody we kill accidentally was planning to Nuke the US.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I wonder how the US was able to be successful in Afghanistan, while you guys got your arse handed to you?
What makes you think you have been successful? You’re just occupying the country and BARELY managing to control the major cities. The wilderness is still warlord country. When you leave, like the Russians did, Afghanistan will be the same chithole it always has been.
lol! Next you’ll say you’ve been successful in Iraq as well! :lol
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Wow. Thats got to be the stoopidest thing I have ever read in my life.
How true WhiteHawk, looks like propaganda works,
humans rights are worth **** now.
I doubt this is a really good way to get new friends.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
Right after 9/11, I was amazed at the emotions of the Americans. Lot's of fire....rebuild intel, strengthen the military. These are the tools that keep us safe.
I used to say, "After a few years go by with no terrorist activity, please remember the emotions of 9/11". I knew that the liberal underbelly would slowly turn us into terrorists ourselves, and we'd begin the slow demise of intel and military again.
It's happening, just as I feared.
If you favor stopping the efforts, if you favor weakening military and intel, please don't weigh in when it happens on US soil again.
I am unsure why so many Americans feel the need to tear down America.
As for the foreigners posting here, I appreciate their opinions. I hope they influence their own governments to their way of thinking, but don't come crying to the US when your bellybutton is in a sling.
I think we have done enough to bail Europe out of trouble already. Just honor the Americans buried or lost on your soil.
First of all, we have to be sure we are killing the right people or we are no better than the puke who carried out 911. Second of all, they knew al-queada second man wasnt there or they would have launched 20 choppers with a cupple hundred special forces in an all out effort to capture the guy alive. DO you realize the intel this guy could have provided? we could have disabled the entire al queada network with this dude alive. No way, no way on earth they just ho-hum bomb him dead.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
How true WhiteHawk, looks like propaganda works,
humans rights are worth **** now.
I doubt this is a really good way to get new friends.
I am disgusted with the US govt right now. I am not against stopping the terrorist, quite the opposite. But, im starting to wonder exactly who the terrorist are? Do they want to strike america becasue they hate our freedoms? Or becasue we drop bombs on thier families heads and then try to justify it as part of 'the war on terror'.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Wow. Thats got to be the stoopidest thing I have ever read in my life.
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
How true WhiteHawk, looks like propaganda works,
humans rights are worth **** now.
I doubt this is a really good way to get new friends.
Oh booo hoo hoo.
some "innocent" villagers who were probably helping hide house and feed those directly responcable for 9/11 got killed while we were trying to kill those directly responcable for 9/11.
Sorry. my heart isnt pumping purple piss for them.
It is a not so little known fact that those poor innocent villigars in the area are largly in support of Bin Laden and his cohorts
If you are helping my enemy. You ARE my enemy.
If you are in front of my lines and among my enemy. Well thats a bad place to be cause you may die too..
There is no clean, nice polite way to successfully fight a war.
WAR is in itself a violation of human rights.
Bullets and bombs are very impersonal things. They tend to kill or maim whoever they hit. Not just the bad guys. Be nice if they could. But it just dont work that way.
But you want to mention human rights? what about the rights of the journalist who had his throat cut. or those that have had their heads cut off.
The people that killed them. And those that support them dont give a damn about human rights unless its their own.
You want to talk about propaganda? You feel bad that people have died who would just as soon kill any one of us as look at us.
So who is it really is the victim of propaganda?
Gimme a break. There is no clean way to fight a war.
You can and should try to reduce collateral damage where you can yes. But not if it interferes with the overall objective.
-
Lots of probably, maybe, can have been, might in there Dreidlock.
If you can deal death based on so many maybe's, you're pretty callous.
If we try to stick to the facts it'd be fair to say that neither of us know anything about the people killed.
While tribes in the area are known to be sympathetic towards Islamists, it's not the same as being terrorists. It doesn't mean this particular tribe is, although it may very well be, considering an important enemy guy was in the vicinity.
Kids were killed. Kids generally haven't lived long enough to become hardened terrorists and usually don't have the means to support terrorists.
The fact is we don't know much about those that were killed. Calling them terrorists and terrorist supporters with nothing to back it up in order to justify their deaths is intellectually dishonest. If you can find some factual evidence to support your assertion, I'd be interested in seeing it.
If you know there's going to be civilian deaths as a result of an operation, you better make 100% sure you get the bad guy.
This operation was a f*ckup, not only because civilians were killed. That was expected, taken into account and the rewards justified it to the commanders ordering the strike. But they missed their target and instead killed a bunch of people who were at the periphery of the war on terror.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
But you want to mention human rights? what about the rights of the journalist who had his throat cut. or those that have had their heads cut off.
The people that killed them. And those that support them dont give a damn about human rights unless its their own.
what have the dead civilians to do with that ???
i give you a brake, your attitude towards them "my heart isnt pumping purple piss for them" shows it all.
blood for blood.
StSanta said it right.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
except you lost..
If it was "defeat" then you don't have a slightest chance to win there. If you'll read something about 1979-89 in Afghanistan - you'll probably be surprised to know that USSR withdrew 40th army because of political decision, not because it "lost".
Do your soldiers walk around Afghani cities unarmed?
Funny how everyone already forgot that Taliban was defeated by Northern Alliance armed with Russian weapons. BTW, the weapon supply to NA was cut only a few months ago.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
Well that was then this is now times have changed there are more terrorist and more weapons we had to fight the T72s Russia gave saddam plus countless insurgents
Funny. Saddam had Polish T-72s, not Soviet.
Again: immediately after Iran-Iraq war began - USSR immediately stopped all weapon supplies to Iraq. Most of Iraqi debt to USSR was for oil-drilling equipment.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I wonder how the US was able to be successful in Afghanistan, while you guys got your arse handed to you? I'm pretty sure we have less troops than you did.
We have lost just over 2000 people in Iraq since we invaded, so it's not like we are getting are arses handed to us like you guys did in Afghanistan. How many did you lose again?
I thought that military experts said that the USSR could take over Europe and the Middle east in a few weeks? I guess Afghanistan is stronger than Europe and the Middle East combined.......how else could you have lost?
You guys screwed up almost everything you touched.
USSR lost 13700 men in Afghanistan IIRC. It's total losses in 10 years.
Again: we had three times less soldiers in a country two times bigger. We had total control over the country, and didn't have suicide-bombers blowing everything up every day. "Hostilities" could end in mid-80s if one country didn't support terrorists they have to "fight" now.
Compared to 40th army in Afghanistan - your "projecting power" is a total failure.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No. If you set the nuke issue aside, Russia never had the ability to project power. I.E. They couldn't take their armies half way across the world.
RF has a border that's over 14000km long. Russian Empire and USSR had a longer border. It takes 7 days to travel from Moscow to Vladivostok by train. Transferring huge armies (three fronts, more then US ever had) from Europe to Far East was almost half-world far.
Russia projected power to Far East in 1904-05 and in 1945. USSR defeated Japanese ground army in 1945, it took only two weeks and 9000 people lost. Manchurian operation was the greatest example of "projecting power" in human history. Even in 1904-05 Second Pacific Task Force made an unprecedented journey to Far East from Baltic Sea around Africa. Unfortunately - it was too late to save the war. As for Middle East - in 1942 USSR occupied Iran together with British Empire, and didn't suffer any significant losses at all. Now you project power to Iraq - does it make you happy? It's easy to bomb everyone to stone age half-world away, it's harder to come and stay.
-
but in WW2 the USSR was not alone the U.S. helped them so USSR can't take all the credit and the USSR didn't make Japan surrender the U.S. did and Russia and Japan never signed a peace treaty after ww2 so technically Russia and Japan are still at war
-
Originally posted by Boroda
USSR lost 13700 men in Afghanistan IIRC. It's total losses in 10 years.
Again: we had three times less soldiers in a country two times bigger. We had total control over the country, and didn't have suicide-bombers blowing everything up every day. "Hostilities" could end in mid-80s if one country didn't support terrorists they have to "fight" now.
Compared to 40th army in Afghanistan - your "projecting power" is a total failure.
Gee, its pretty bold of you to gloss over the fact your "supreme" government collapsed.
If you and your communist era bullcrap are so dominant, why'd ya die off like the dinosaurs you are?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Gee, its pretty bold of you to gloss over the fact your "supreme" government collapsed.
If you and your communist era bullcrap are so dominant, why'd ya die off like the dinosaurs you are?
I said some things. They are 1) Facts and 2) Estimations.
Look, you don't even argue with estimations, you only say some expected nonsence.
Sorry, but "history is on our side". You are not even smart enough, so you fall into traps we already suffered.
-
You can't compare US in Iraq and Russia in Afghanistan. Compare both nations efforts in Afghanistan.
Look at reasons for invading.
Look at casualties per year, for extent of conflict.
America is doing better....much better than Russia did. When you invade Iraq you can tell us what we're doing wrong. Also, if you feel the need to bring up how we supplied the men fighting your men in your little field trip, by all means, supply the Taliban with weapons to fight us. Or the Iraqi insurgents. But you won't you know why? Your country is dead in the water.
-
LOL @ at the orphan of the failed communist experiment waving the facts flag around. History is always on your side when you write it ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I said some things. They are 1) Facts and 2) Estimations.
Look, you don't even argue with estimations, you only say some expected nonsence.
Sorry, but "history is on our side". You are not even smart enough, so you fall into traps we already suffered.
Looks like you have a solid case of dimentia!
"history is on your side" ? So tell me, what did Afghanistan do to the USSR to deserve an invasion? The Taliban attacked us...what's your story?
Expected nonsense? Oh Im sorry, does that mean my facts dont fit your delusions?
The USSR got spanked hard and ran with its tail between its legs. Then, not long after, the USSR crumbled.
Now yo go spin that for a few hours and reply. I certainly appreciate the comical responses. You, my friend, are our new Baghdad Bob. "No no, Russian won!" LOL
-
The usual white noise.
In any case what I always find disconcerting is that there never seems to be good human assets in that part of the world. Its Pakistan, its a small village, and again and again the forces there have to rely on using air strikes on these kinds of targets, rather than a team to go in and see who and what is there. I just dont see making a big dent by remote hellfire missiles unless you get very very lucky. I know part of it is the difficulty of the terrain, and the remoteness of the sites, but still, what happened to all that rebuilding of covert assets? Need some Pakistani speaking folks who can mix in there and see stuff on the ground with their own eyes, and people to back them up. Not just shooting missiles at thermal spots from a Predator drone. Reminds me of pre 9-11 methods that didnt work.
Too bad they didnt splat him, but they need more covert boots over there. Try it the old fashioned way, with a SMG and a grenade first. Or two.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Looks like you have a solid case of dimentia!
"history is on your side" ? So tell me, what did Afghanistan do to the USSR to deserve an invasion? The Taliban attacked us...what's your story?
One of the reasons the USSR invaded was because of the growing influence of Islamic nutjobs in Afghanistan. Sound familiar?
In case it escaped your notice, the effective influence of the US troops in Afghanistan barely extends beyond Kabul and a few other urban areas. The rest of the country is as much a basket case as it always was. Also, your handpicked Afghani president just tacitly admitted that he can't handle the ongoing insurgency directed by the remnants of the Taliban despite all the US troops at his disposal. Or did the news of Karzai offering to have talks with Mullah Omar not register with you despite it being plastered all over the world media?
Better not start declaring victory just yet hey? After all, if you are doing so well in the region, then why not insert troops into the scene of this latest failed attempt to bag a senior AQ figure instead of relying on a UAV attack that smacks of desperation?
The USSR got spanked hard and ran with its tail between its legs. Then, not long after, the USSR crumbled.
The USSR stuck it out for an entire decade though in spite of the US helping the Islamists it now purports to oppose, and it took the events of Sept 11 2001 to prove them right, or did that not occur to you?
-
Well, ok.
Fact - It's gone.
Fact - It was a flawed concept from Day 1.
Fact - It required fencing IN their own people. Think about it.
The Evil Empire is gone, and Reagan broke their back through the brilliance of a technology that didn't work. God love it.
-
If the Cold War turned hot
(http://laps.fri.uni-lj.si/~duke/HPpictures/crater.jpg)
Russia would look like this
Get the Point:aok
-
The downside is so would alot of the rest of the world also looked like that.
Including here
One of the best lines I heard Gorbachev say was when he was visiting the US and someone asked him "how many nuclear missles do you have aimed at the US"
His responce. "Not any more then you have aimed at us."
thats why whe I used to hear people all paranoid after 9/11 about the possibility of another major attack I would shrug them off cause I remember when the threat was alot worse.
Not that the current threat isnt serious.
Its just nowhere near as bad as it was during the cold war.
When as a kid I remember we used to have two types of drills in school.
One was the standard fire drill where everyone would walk outside.
the other was one where we all used to go down to the basement.
I remember clearly passing under the sign above the door that read "Fallout Shelter".
Like I said. We've been through worse
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Again: immediately after Iran-Iraq war began - USSR immediately stopped all weapon supplies to Iraq.
Havent you been cought with this lie before? The MiG-29 didn't enter service with the USSR until after the start of the Iran-Iraq war. Where did Iraq get those MiG-29s? Where did they get the spare parts for all those MiGs to keep them operational into the '90s?
-
the sad truth is, if we dont start killing each other alot more then people will quite literally be falling off their countries into the oceans.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
If the Cold War turned hot
Russia would look like this
Get the Point:aok
I always enjoy manifestations of alternative mental development, thanks.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Looks like you have a solid case of dimentia!
case of what? solid? i have some solid fiber suit-cases in my dark room, how did you know?
Originally posted by LePaul
"history is on your side" ? So tell me, what did Afghanistan do to the USSR to deserve an invasion? The Taliban attacked us...what's your story?
Invasion? Sorry, "invasion" was what your country did in Iraq. USSR sent troops to help legitimate Afghani government.
Taliban attacked US!? Sorry, did you study geography in elementary school? Taliban attacked Commonwealth countries, and Russian border-guards fought them since mid-90s, tell me if you'll find where US and Afghanistan have common borders. If you'll find such a place - I think you deserve a Nobel prize in geography.
Originally posted by LePaul
Expected nonsense? Oh Im sorry, does that mean my facts dont fit your delusions?
Your facts? Did I miss something? So far your hallucinations are based on Rambo-III and other idiotic movies for brain-dead.
Originally posted by LePaul
The USSR got spanked hard and ran with its tail between its legs. Then, not long after, the USSR crumbled.
Spanked? Tail? Good description of US in Vietnam.
JFYI: 40th army effectively performed it's combat tasks. It was withdrawn because of a political decision. The result was a total disaster for Afghanistan.
Originally posted by LePaul
Now yo go spin that for a few hours and reply. I certainly appreciate the comical responses. You, my friend, are our new Baghdad Bob. "No no, Russian won!" LOL
USSR didn't "win" but it didn't lose too. We simply withdrew. It wasn't a result of military defeat in any way. I hope you are able to understand it, it's easy if you try.
-
http://www.tnl.net/when/12/27
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/727874.stm
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/articles/ussr.html
http://www.marxist.com/Asia/tgrant_on_afghan1980.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1015/p13s1-wosc.html
So Russia did withdraw becuase they loseing
-
I think our withdraw from Vietnam was political too. They never attacked American soil, we invaded then we left. We were propping up *ahem* supporting a legitimate government. If that's what you are claiming happened in your incursion in Afghanistan, then we are even.
And since you want to bring up old defeats...Those Japanese really beat up on you in 1905 huh? We fared much better against them. You people need to have a .500 record in warfighting before you can tell anyone what they are doing wrong.
-
We withdrew from Nam for political reasons ending Nam let the U.S. focus on those commies
-
No you didn't want to answer that one Boroda.
-
Originally posted by Harry
No you didn't want to answer that one Boroda.
Sorry.
USSR weapon exports policy was never to supply aggressors during the war. Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, so Saddam had 2 years to buy that MiGs.
You can easliy make a list of criminal and aggressive regimes who bougth weapons in the US.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
USSR sent troops to help legitimate Afghani government.
LMAO Thanks. I needed a new sig.
-
Originally posted by Squire
The usual white noise.
In any case what I always find disconcerting is that there never seems to be good human assets in that part of the world. Its Pakistan, its a small village, and again and again the forces there have to rely on using air strikes on these kinds of targets, rather than a team to go in and see who and what is there...
.. Need some Pakistani speaking folks who can mix in there and see stuff on the ground with their own eyes, and people to back them up. Not just shooting missiles at thermal spots from a Predator drone. Reminds me of pre 9-11 methods that didnt work.
Too bad they didnt splat him, but they need more covert boots over there. Try it the old fashioned way, with a SMG and a grenade first. Or two.
It's a good thought, Squire, but very hard to implement. These are villages with a population in the hundreds, where everyone is related to everyone else. "Mixing in" would be almost impossible.
-
Let me extrapolate for the benefit of the reader. In 1978 the marxist president of Afghanistan was a friend to the USSR. The USSR aided him greatly in resisting the anti-communist rebels, even to the point of signing a friendship and alliance treaty. As time went by president Amin became increasingly and nearly completely dependant on soviet military aid. In 1979 the inevitible happened as Moscow siezed the opportunity.
GRU/MVD spetsnaz with soviet airborne troops providing security executed an attack planned by Department Eight on Anim's presidential palace for the purpose of liquidating the occupants. The commander of the spetsnaz element Col. Boyarinov, commander of the KGB sabotage school at Balashinka, gave orders to the soviet airborne troops to shoot anyone who tries to leave the palace. The presidents bodyguards fought very well and the spetsnaz became bogged down and ran low on ammunition. Col. Boyarinov went outside to get help from the airborne troopers but instead was shot by them as he was exiting the palace.
The only occupant of the palace who was not killed was the cook, who was a KGB operative.
The USSR's rationale for the bloodbath? President Amin was a CIA agent.
Of course I'm sure the comisar knows of an alternate history.
-
Originally posted by Suave
GRU/MVD spetsnaz with soviet airborne troops providing security executed an attack planned by Department Eight on Anim's presidential palace for the purpose of liquidating the occupants. The commander of the spetsnaz element Col. Boyarinov, commander of the KGB sabotage school at Balashinka, gave orders to the soviet airborne troops to shoot anyone who tries to leave the palace. The presidents bodyguards fought very well and the spetsnaz became bogged down and ran low on ammunition. Col. Boyarinov went outside to get help from the airborne troopers but instead was shot by them as he was exiting the palace.
What did you smoke and where I can get the same?
The storm operation was made by Kaskad and Zenith groups with ZSU-23 Shilka coverage. The whole operation took 40 minutes. 3 killed and 6-8 injured.
MVD special groups never used outside of USSR.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Let me extrapolate for the benefit of the reader. In 1978 the marxist president of Afghanistan was a friend to the USSR. The USSR aided him greatly in resisting the anti-communist rebels, even to the point of signing a friendship and alliance treaty.
Well, in fact - Soviet Russia was the first country to recognise the state of Afghanistan in 1920.
IIRC "friendship and alliance treaty" was signed ages before 1978 April revolution.
USSR traditionally aided Afghani King, with all possible means, including training air-force pilots and giving free education to Afghani students.
-
The treaty was signed in 1978. MVD, ministry of defense, whatever. Yes the airborne troops were the 154th muslim battalion who had ZSUs as well as other vehicles.
5 kgb/gru spetsnaz were killed including Boyarinov, 36 wounded. 5 airborne troops were killed and 25 wounded. ( I had to look this up)
The ZSUs started shooting the palace at the onset of the assault but the 23mm rounds surprising bounced off the stone walls wounding the soviets assaulters. The spetsnaz cleared the palace WWII style, with fragmentation grenades.
-
Oh after further inquiry I've learned that there were indeed soviet Ministry of Internal affairs shooters there. MVD personel had been in Afghanistan quite awhile prior to the invasion.
I should've known better than to question myself :p
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Sorry.
USSR weapon exports policy was never to supply aggressors during the war. Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, so Saddam had 2 years to buy that MiGs.
You can easliy make a list of criminal and aggressive regimes who bougth weapons in the US.
"While maintaining official neutrality in the Iran-Iraq War, the Soviet Union had provided extensive military assistance to Iraq, and at the same time, continued its efforts to gain leverage on Iran. In early 1987, Moscow delivered a squadron of twenty-four MiG-29 Fulcrums to Baghdad. Considered the most advanced fighter in the Soviet arsenal, the MiG-29 previously had been provided only to Syria and India. The decision to export the MiG-29 to Iraq, also assured Iraq a more advantageous payment schedule than any offered by the West and it reflected Soviet support for one of its traditional allies in the Middle East. In May 1987 the Soviets provided Iraq with better financial terms in a successful effort to prevent Iraq from buying sixty French Mirage 2000 fighters for an estimated US$3 billion. Caught in a financial crisis, Baghdad welcomed the low-interest loans Moscow extended for this equipment. "
The USSR was a major arms supplier to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Though you were hardly alone in that respect.
-
It's what Superpowers do. You arm and equip all the wars around you, destabilizing potentially competitive nations.
-
Originally posted by Harry
"While maintaining official neutrality in the Iran-Iraq War, the Soviet Union had provided extensive military assistance to Iraq, and at the same time, continued its efforts to gain leverage on Iran. In early 1987, Moscow delivered a squadron of twenty-four MiG-29 Fulcrums to Baghdad. Considered the most advanced fighter in the Soviet arsenal, the MiG-29 previously had been provided only to Syria and India. The decision to export the MiG-29 to Iraq, also assured Iraq a more advantageous payment schedule than any offered by the West and it reflected Soviet support for one of its traditional allies in the Middle East. In May 1987 the Soviets provided Iraq with better financial terms in a successful effort to prevent Iraq from buying sixty French Mirage 2000 fighters for an estimated US$3 billion. Caught in a financial crisis, Baghdad welcomed the low-interest loans Moscow extended for this equipment. "
The USSR was a major arms supplier to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Though you were hardly alone in that respect.
Well, looked into Belonogov's book on a Gulf crisis, looks like you really caught me. He says USSR didn't sell weapons to aggressors, but, after Iraq started to loose the war - it was OK to sell weapons again... My mistake :(
BTW, $50M for a Mirage - is it true? IIRC in early-90s export MiG-29s were sold for $25M.