Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. Election - Obama Wins (Part 2)  
User currently offlineModerators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 514 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2165 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Though all the votes have not been tallied, the election has been called for Obama. Please continue the discussion about the results and the election process here.

(continuation of http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...s/non_aviation/read.main/2000757/)


Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2156 times:



Quote:
RJdxer I'm not concerned about how other countries view us since as I have said before our security is of prime importance.

RJ, are you really going to have us believe that you believe views of other countries have no bearing on our security?

The RAND Corporation's expert terrorism research disagrees with you:

Al Qa'ida's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy. Its goal of a pan-Islamic caliphate leaves little room for a negotiated political settlement with governments in the Middle East. A more effective U.S. approach would involve a two-front strategy:

* Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.


http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

Case in point - what they think impacts our security.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4968 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2139 times:



Quote:
Quote:
RJdxer

coming from the other thread you wrote:

"If you are going to lay the responsibility for the attacks on him then you automatically lay the blame as well, they go hand in hand. That being said, if the crypt keeper President Elect Joe Bidens prediction comes to pass of an attack of some kind within six months does that mean we can blame President Obama and hold him responsible for it as well even if it is shown that the vast majority of recruiting, planning, and training happened on President Bushes watch? I don't believe for a minute that will happen, It will be President Bushes fault all the way around and you hear nothing but how his administration dropped the ball."


If a -God forbid- attack happens within the first month or so, the responsabilty will be shared, unless it can be proved that it was planned in that month. However, if an attack would be after 8 months, for me it would be a failure in the Obama administration, even if the planning was prior to that. And I differ that respnsability = blame. I don't blame Bush for the attacks, it's not like he did it on purpose or he wanted it to happen, but he, as President and Commander in Chief has the ultimate responsability of everything and anything involving the country he presides, just like the stcok market downfall, the f*** ups during Katrina, etc.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
RJ, are you really going to have us believe that you believe views of other countries have no bearing on our security?

Not only terrorists are from other countries, but other countries need to be your closest allies in helping you prevent terrorist attacks. Not caring about what the rest of the world thinks is a huge mistake.



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2117 times:



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 2):
If a -God forbid- attack happens within the first month or so, the responsabilty will be shared,

Al Qaida is smarter than that. They won't attack now. They will wait till Obama lays out his plan for dealing with Iran and Al Qaida.

BTW first campaign promise broken already. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq won't be happening. Obama has assured Iraq officials he will consult with people on the ground before making plans to withdraw. Not a surprise. That was the easiest campaign promise you knew he couldn't deliver on. Codepink won't be happy. Wonder if they will treat him as bad as they did Pelosi.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2108 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.

We tried this approach up until November of 2001. What did it get us? WTC1. Two Embassies in Africa blown up, not some damage to the gates but blown up. The USS Cole. WTC2. Since November 2001 when we stopped treating them as just ordinary criminals how much physical damage have we reiceved outside of the combat zones? If you want to include the embassy in Pakistan last year I will grant that. The embassy itself was not damaged in any significant way. So you tell me, which approach seems to have kept our infrastructure and civilians more safe?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
Case in point - what they think impacts our security.

No it does not since we are ultimately responsible for our own national security. That is why when people bring up the London and Madrid bombings I have consistently said that the UK and Spains internal security is there own to deal with.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 2):
And I differ that respnsability = blame.

If there is a failure and you share responsiblity then you utlimately share the blame for the failure. The two go hand in hand.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2107 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
BTW first campaign promise broken already. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq won't be happening. Obama has assured Iraq officials he will consult with people on the ground before making plans to withdraw. Not a surprise. That was the easiest campaign promise you knew he couldn't deliver on. Codepink won't be happy. Wonder if they will treat him as bad as they did Pelosi.

BTW, you have no idea what you're talking about,... what a surprise.

Obama's stated policy position regarding Iraq:

Quote:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Codepink has no influence whatsoever on the soon to be Obama Administration. They are a fringe group with virtually no political power and even less ability to shape events.

You would be well served to get your information from a source other than the lying fascist dullards on right-wing talk radio.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2661 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

How funny!


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2107 times:



Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 5):
Obama's stated policy position regarding Iraq:

Funny I kind of remember him saying he would withdraw troops. You know back when he told you all you wanted toi hear. Then backpedaled when he knew he couldn't possibly deliver.

Also 2010 is a fantasy. Another one Obama will flip on. Iraq must be able to protect themselves for us to withdraw and that isn't going to be 2010 by any stretch.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 5):
Codepink has no influence whatsoever on the soon to be Obama Administration. They are a fringe group with virtually no political power and even less ability to shape events

If you believe this then it is you that has no idea what you are talking about.


User currently offlineDiamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 63
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2106 times:

Focusing a bit more on the positive, please check out the Obama/Biden Transition Project website which just went live:

http://www.change.gov/



Blank.
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2106 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 7):
If you believe this then it is you that has no idea what you are talking about.

Whatever. Your party just had its ass handed to it because of a massive failure to govern in the last eight years. If republicans keep up your brand of Orwellian disconnection from reality, it will lose even more House and Senate seats in 2010. I don't think the GOP would survive additional serious losses like that, it would cease to exist.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4968 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2106 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
Al Qaida is smarter than that. They won't attack now. They will wait till Obama lays out his plan for dealing with Iran and Al Qaida.

And you know that how? What if Obama actually does a decent job? What if he manages to clean up the mess left by W in Iraq? What if he manages to lower terrorist groups? How the hell do you know who will attack, when, and where??

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 4):
If there is a failure and you share responsiblity then you utlimately share the blame for the failure. The two go hand in hand.

Then he's to blame, but it's too much of a strong word for what I really mean.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
BTW first campaign promise broken already

DId he promise he'll find WMD's and that Saddam and Bin Laden are good buddies? oops, sorry that's georgie and his gang ....



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5869 posts, RR: 39
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2106 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
Al Qaida is smarter than that. They won't attack now. They will wait till Obama lays out his plan for dealing with Iran and Al Qaida.

Nick, do you actually have any understanding of what Al Qaida is & what its really about? AQ don't really care as much about the US as you'd believe, all they want is to settle old scores in their homeland, yet the US continually gets in the way of that happening by propping up regimes like the House of Saud and Mubarak. I'll come right out and say it now, the US won't be attacked whilst Obama is President, why? because he's not willing to make a stupid mistake by opening up a new front like Bush has done in Iraq.

Al Qaida knows it can't fight a war with the US on US soil, but it can sucker idiots like Bush into opening a new theatre of war, where exactly do you suggest the US attack next if an attack happens during Obama's presidency? Afghanistan? well the military is already there, Pakistan? well the tribal provinces are already being attacked, Iran? nope..not there because they're not stupid enough to allow Al Qaida to plan a US attack from their soil, Iraq? well Bush made sure that Al Qaida could take a strangle hold there by launching a war.

15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a fair amount of the insurgents in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia too, yet its the only country not being targeted in the War on Terror.

you seriously need to stop with the fear bullshit..it won't happen because Obama is smart enough not to get suckered into a full-scale war.



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2005 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 4):
So you tell me, which approach seems to have kept our infrastructure and civilians more safe?

You're thinking only in the short-term context of the last 8 years - this is a long-term problem that needs a long-term paradigm focus. I'm glad the RAND corporation has been doing policy analysis for the DoD for 45 years and not you. Did you even read the full report? There is NO historical precedent for defeating terrorists militarily - NONE.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2005 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12):
There is NO historical precedent for defeating terrorists militarily - NONE.

And there is every precedent that if you don't employ your military you shit will keep gettting blown up. There is no way the police are going to be able to operate in the outland provinces of Afghanistan and certainly not in Pakistan. That is a military area of operations and the military are the only ones that can deal with that situation. There is a time and place for police but not there.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2005 times:



Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 9):
Whatever. Your party just had its ass handed to it because of a massive failure to govern in the last eight years.

No actually it was because McCain campagined terribly and the fact Obama promised everything from ending the war in Iraq to free health care.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 9):
it will lose even more House and Senate seats in 2010.

Judging by how great a job Pelosi and Reid have done that won't happen.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 9):
it would cease to exist

?? Doubt it.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 10):
What if he manages to clean up the mess left by W in Iraq

What mess? Obama is inheriting a success. All he is doing is listening to the experts and withdrawing troops. He will be responsible for nothing. Unless the disaster of pulling out too early.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 11):
Nick, do you actually have any understanding of what Al Qaida is & what its really about? AQ don't really care as much about the US as you'd believe, all they want is to settle old scores in their homeland

Monty where do you get this stuff from? It is you that needs to learn a little about AQ. I will give you a quick lesson so grab a pen. AQ hates Christianity and has this pipe dream that Christians and Jews want to destroy Islam. So this "settle old scores in their homeland" make no sense. Instead of typing baseless comments you should research AQ and Osama. You will find the common denominator is our beliefs and Isreal and our support of them. See Monty radical Islam hates Isreal and wants them destroyed.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 11):
Al Qaida knows it can't fight a war with the US on US soil,

No kidding Monty, they are terrorists. Which means they are cowards and try to win by intimidation and fear. They will never want a straight up fight.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 11):
Obama is smart enough not to get suckered into a full-scale war.

Again Monty you are making little sense. It's not about getting suckered into anything.


User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4968 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2005 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 14):
What mess? Obama is inheriting a success.

you consider the thousands that have died (many, many, many more than 9/11 and all terorist attacks put together) a success? Due to an invasion justified with lies? I hope some day someone invades your town for no reason, then tell me it's a success. Thanks to people with your mentality the US is so unpopular. YOU INVADED A COUNTRY for NO REASON. Imagine Russia invades the US because they think Bush is evil. Would you justify that?
Oh, and just in case W didn't know, the wmd's are in Israel, India, China, and several other places, but not in Iraq.



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2007 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
And there is every precedent that if you don't employ your military you shit will keep gettting blown up. There is no way the police are going to be able to operate in the outland provinces of Afghanistan and certainly not in Pakistan.

RJdxer, the military cannot take on a basically-civilian movement. What would you have done if you'd had advance notice of 9/11; ordered airstrikes on Newark Airport?

There is a limited role for Special Forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan (which they're already undertaking, as it happens; in Iran as well). But 'formed troops' serve vritually no purpose in the counter-insurgency role - especially now that they're 100% mechanised and have to stick to the roads, especially in mountainous areas. They're really just presenting themselves as targets.

US forces alone have already had over 4,000 killed in Iraq/Afghanistan, plus over 100,000 out of action through wounds, mental impairment, or suicide. For no results at all, in terms of counter-insurgency, as far as I can see. And the losses are still going on.

The only answers are 'homeland security' within the USA, and proper intelligence work in other places. And by 'proper' I mean agents working on the ground in the problem areas, abd recruiting locals to gather information.

One of the biggest mistakes US Intelligence has made is to 'devalue' its intelligence services to the point where all you basically have is a load of office-workers sitting in places like Langley, Virginia, and using magnifying-glasses on aerial photographs. When you think about it, that (wrong) approach is what triggered all the wrong turnings, like attacking Afghanistan in the belief that you could catch Bin Laden, and then invading Iraq in pursuit of non-existent WMDs, and now firing rockets into Afghan wedding parties..........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...begs-Obama-end-U-S-airstrikes.html

I very much hope that Obama will take a fresh approach - starting with telling the CIA to get out of its offices and start doing its proper job again.

[Edited 2008-11-06 19:59:18]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2007 times:



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
RJdxer, the military cannot take on a basically-civilian movement. What would you have done if you'd had advance notice of 9/11; ordered airstrikes on Newark Airport?

The United States military cannot operate on domestic soil. At that point, if they caught they become a police problem. In Afghanistan and in Iraq it is a militray one.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
But 'formed troops' serve vritually no purpose in the counter-insurgency role - especially now that they're 100% mechanised and have to stick to the roads, especially in mountainous areas. They're really just presenting themselves as targets.

Perhaps you need to take a look at some of our divisions table of organization and equipment.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
And by 'proper' I mean agents working on the ground in the problem areas, abd recruiting locals to gather information.

The local tribes in Pakistan have been aware of the large bounty on OBL's head for some time. A number of experts have agreed that they will not give him up for any amount because he is revered.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
I very much hope that Obama will take a fresh approach - starting with telling the CIA to get out of its offices and start doing its proper job again.

Good luck on that. The liberal left has done its utmost to disable and hamper the CIA since its inception.


User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2005 times:



Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 9):
Whatever. Your party just had its ass handed to it because of a massive failure to govern in the last eight years. If republicans keep up your brand of Orwellian disconnection from reality, it will lose even more House and Senate seats in 2010. I don't think the GOP would survive additional serious losses like that, it would cease to exist.

Nicely said, Bravo that.

The Dems may score even more seats in 10. Look at some of the states and districts that swung blue this time. Wow, just wow. This election was the death of the Republican Party as we knew it since Puppet Regan. Not only were Americans sick and tired of Criminals such as Rove & Bush, they repudiated them with looky who.


User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5869 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2005 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 14):
Monty where do you get this stuff from?

where in gods name have you been for the last 7 years? try keeping up with what's what.

read...this is what the former head of the Bin Laden thinks about AQ.

Quote:
GEORGE NEGUS: Gone too far for these differences to be resolved?

MICHAEL SCHEUER: We cannot resolve these differences. The answer to this is almost a policy of deflection. We're not the main enemies of the Islamists, we're in their way. America, it's probably a blow to our ego but we are not the main enemy. They want us out of the Middle East because according to their game plan they think if we're gone the support for Israel and the support for the Saudis and the Egyptians that goes with us will allow them finally to settle affairs in their own homeland.

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/michael_scheuer_interview_130806

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 14):
AQ hates Christianity and has this pipe dream that Christians and Jews want to destroy Islam.

lol...keep drinking the cool-aid son, you've got no idea wtf you're on about.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 14):
Again Monty you are making little sense. It's not about getting suckered into anything.

doh...why the hell do you think they wanted McCain?



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2005 times:



Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 9):
Your party just had its ass handed to it

A difference of 8 million votes out of 123 million is hardly and ass whooping. Its more like winning by a touchdown in football, a secure win for sure, but not a blow out by any means.

The question should be raised, what happens in four years? What happens when the poor realize that Obama's "redistribution" of the wealth has not made them rich? What will happen when they realize that they do in fact need to work to make money? What will happen when they realize that they can not get work because companies are paying higher taxes and can not afford to hire new employees?



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13200 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

Our long national nighmare is over. When I heard at about 11 pm on Tuesday that Obama was the winner based on the numbers of votes and other data by then, I found it to be of great relief.

Soon a new President will come to power, facing huge issues from terrorism to the economy to a range of pent up demands put off by the GWB Administration. We see the urgency of the need for Obama to take power in the extremely swift process of getting key staffers in place, meeting with GWB and getting intellegence briefings. Let us hope some of Obamas input, plans and ideas are put into place before he takes office as we can't wait until late January. I don't expect him to keep all of his promises or desired plans, especially the wide range and depth of his proposed tax cuts and a quicker pace of exiting our troops out of Iraq, but I do hope for a badly needed change in attitude away from the neocon dominated Presidential policies to more reasoned ones. The general public also must do it's part, recognizing the need to save more cash, not spend as much, reduce energy use, and maybe even pray in support of this new administration.


User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2005 times:



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 21):
The general public also must do it's part, recognizing the need to save more cash, not spend as much, reduce energy use,

Good luck with that cause.



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4968 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2005 times:



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 21):
meeting with GWB and getting intellegence briefings.

he'll have a hard time getting anything out of that ....



sorry, couldn't resist Big grin



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2007 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Perhaps you need to take a look at some of our divisions table of organization and equipment.

I'm sure that they could make mincemeat of a Russian Arnoured Division in the open field, RJdxer. Which is the role for which they are still organised, equipped, and trained. But there's no way they - or any other uniformed army - can deal with an 'enemy' that consists of one or two guys with RPs or Kalashnikovs who 'shoot and run away' - especially because the AK47 out-ranges the M16 by at least 300 yards.

So the procedure is, 'Take cover and call in air support.' Which arrives maybe 20 minutes later, after the snipers are back home safe, pastes the whole area, and only kills civilians - thus making the USA and NATO another fifty or so mortal enemies........

You have to bear in mind that the British and Indian armies tried to conquer and pacify the North-West Frontier for the best part of 100 years, 1840-1940. And that the Russians tried to do the same thing from the north during the same period, and even tried an all-out military invasion as recently as 1979-1989. No-one has ever succeeded in conquering the place.

Only Wiki, but it's a fair summary of what happened to the Russians in the 1980s:-

"The war now developed into a new pattern: the Soviets occupied the cities and main axes of communication, while the mujahideen, divided into small groups, waged a guerrilla war. Almost 80 percent of the country escaped government control. Soviet troops were deployed in strategic areas in the Northeast, especially along the road from Termez to Kabul. In the West, an important presence was maintained to counter Iranian influence. Conversely, some regions such as Nuristan and Hazarajat were virtually untouched by the fighting, and lived in almost complete independence.

"Periodically the Soviet Army undertook multi-divisional offensives into mujahideen-controlled areas. Between 1980 and 1985, nine offensives were launched into the strategic Panjshir Valley, but government control of the area did not improve. Heavy fighting also occurred in the provinces neighbouring Pakistan, where cities and government outposts were constantly under siege by the mujahideen. Massive Soviet operations would regularly break these sieges, but the mujahideen would return as soon as the coast was clear. In the West and South, fighting was more sporadic, except in the cities of Herat and Kandahar, that were always partly controlled by the resistance."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

Sound familiar? It should do, it's exactly what's happening day-by-day to US and NATO forces right now, at this minute.

Military force has never succeeded in conquering Afghanistan. And it never will. Purely because of the terrain and the hardiness of the inhabitants.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
25 Springbok747 : Dude..you should realize that picture has been photoshopped Anyway...why all this Obama bashing from the Republicans? He hasn't even taken office...l
26 EZEIZA : all the same, the second I read the post it came up in my head and I laughed out loud just thinking about it there was though one real picture where
27 FlyingTexan : Unfortunately, its not. Yes, the dim invertebrate who occupies the White House will be gone and most of the Criminals around him either in jail or go
28 Post contains links RJdxer : I'm pretty sure the 101st and the 82nd would be mauled pretty badly by a Russian armored division. The 101st is an airmobile division and the 82nd is
29 RJdxer : I'm sorry, could you list those that are in jail? Of course the democratic party would neeeveeer do anything like that.
30 Post contains images AirportSeven : Here's one for a start: He may not be in jail right now, but that sorry son of a bitch should be.
31 Seb146 : No kidding! The current mess this country is in is Clinton's fault. Never mind Bush/Cheney had a blank check. Never mind Bush/Cheney vastly expanded
32 GDB : NIKV69 and like minded others may perhaps want to do a search on line for a decent anti-terrorism/counter insurgency 101 course. Guess what? It won't
33 NAV20 : Finally I see the problem, RJdxer. You really think of the Taliban as being some sort of foreign invading force. They're not - they're Afghans, and t
34 Superfly : That just sounds too funny!
35 Springbok747 : Funny you should mention that. I think that's the song they played during McCain's speech when he admitted he had lost and congratulated Obama on his
36 RJdxer : Funny, I didn't know he was part of the Bush administration, I thought he was a Congressman from the south side of Houston. Delay was never convicted
37 GDB : I never noticed, not much sense of irony with whoever put that on, (unless it's just not connected with only that film perhaps?)
38 Post contains links Superfly : Looks like Obama won Newbraska's 2nd. Congressional district. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that award it's electors by district. Obama w
39 Post contains links N867DA : I don't know where to put this (or if it warrants its own thread) but the right is doing exactly what the left has done for the past eight years. Step
40 Superfly : Hey if Delta could get some TU-154s to their fleet then I am all for it. You have to admit, the TU-154 would look great in the old cheatline Delta li
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FOX: Bush May Attack Iran If Obama Wins Election posted Thu Jul 17 2008 19:52:39 by Falcon84
U.S. Election - Obama/McCain Debate #3 10/15/2008 posted Wed Oct 15 2008 18:35:22 by Bok269
U.S. Election - Obama/McCain Debate II 10/7/2008 posted Tue Oct 7 2008 22:44:11 by Moderators
Official U.S. Election – Obama/Biden Campaign posted Fri Sep 12 2008 17:51:22 by Moderators
Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies posted Fri Sep 12 2008 17:51:00 by Moderators
Mock Election - Who Wins? posted Wed Sep 29 2004 03:08:44 by EA CO AS
Canadian Election: Chretien Wins posted Tue Nov 28 2000 13:19:03 by Nicolaki
U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 8 posted Sat Nov 1 2008 13:23:29 by Moderators
U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7 posted Fri Oct 24 2008 10:15:54 by Moderators
U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 6 posted Tue Oct 21 2008 03:23:12 by Moderators