Subject: "they were the most effective force he has ever faced"

From: "whyaskwhybot" <blackout@404infomagic.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Sep 20, 2001 10:49 AM
Message-ID: <Ionq7.754$Ni7.89621@news.uswest.net>

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/18/ret.russia.afghanwar/index.ht
ml

Soviet Union's Afghan lessons
September 18, 2001 Posted: 9:07 AM EDT (1307 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia -- Veterans of the Soviet Union's Afghan war in the 1980s
know the perils of waging a war in Afghanistan.

Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British, and finally the Soviet
Union all sent their armies into Afghanistan, only to be beaten back.

Soviet forces fought a war against the Mujahadeen that lasted over 10
years in terrain which many veterans say rendered the inhospitable
country a virtual fortress.

The war, which began when Soviet forces invaded in 1979, claimed nearly
a million Afghan lives and 15,000 Russian troops, with a further 50,000
wounded.

Leo Korolkov, a Russian veteran who trained Soviet special operations
units, similar to the U.S. Delta Force and British SAS, told CNN's Jill
Dougherty: "Modern weapons, rockets, laser-guided missiles -- they're
useless against these mountains.

"I feel sorry for the people who are going to be thrown into those
deserted mountainous, regions where the enemy knows every single rock,
every cave.

"No maps, no computer training can prepare you for it."

Korolkov says the chances of finding Osama bin Laden are slim because
there are numerous places he can hide.

In their protracted war with the Mujahadeen, the Soviet forces faced
guerrilla tactics, including ambushes and suicide attacks.

Korolkov says he saw critically wounded Afghan fighters still clutching
their weapons and firing until their last breath.

Many of them, he says, used drugs before launching operations.

He says they were the most effective force he has ever faced, honed on
20 years of continual war.

He added: "These fighters can bring any country, even a superpower -- be
it Russia, the United States or Europe -- to the brink of catastrophe."

John Garnett, chairman of the Centre of Defence Studies, at London's
King's College, said the U.S. should avoid mounting any ground-based
action in Afghanistan.

Garnett told CNN: "The British had terrible experiences in that part of
the world in the 19th Century and the Russians have had awful
experiences not so long ago.

"Getting involved in ground warfare in Afghanistan... is a very
difficult proposition indeed and I think, on the whole, the United
States should avoid it.

Soviet soldiers deployed in rugged Afghan highlands in 1988
"I don't think you can just bomb the Afghan people into the ground. that
would be a terrible mistake and would lose the United States a lot of
the support and sympathy it now enjoys.

"The critical thing about whatever the United States does it that it
must carry the world community with it, otherwise that support will
evaporate.

"I don't think it can do very much in terms of breaking the will of a
population. I think the more focused the American response is, on
actually getting (Osama) bin Laden and terrorists organisations, the
better.

"If the Americans decide to widen the conflict to attacking countries
that might harbour terrorists, and there are many of them around the
world -- one thinks of Syria, or Algeria, Iraq perhaps, even Pakistan --
then I think sympathy for the United States might begin to evaporate."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: "they were the most effective force he has ever faced"
From: static@zhrodague.net (statichiss)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 3:24 PM
Message-ID: <648f596c.0109211124.603d4dd0@posting.google.com>

> >> >http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/18/ret.russia.afghanwar/index.ht
> >> >ml
> >>
> >> My only thoughts are ....
> >>
> >> Those were *the Soviets* fighting against troops that were
> >> *armed* and *trained* by *us*. I'd like to think the 'helping

"Welcome to planet PHUCK THAT NOISE!! The ship will be landing in a
day or two."

Let me describe the single, key difference between every army that has
ever fought and lost in Afghanistan and what the U.S. is about to do.
. .they were attempting a war of conquest. The U.S. has no intention
of conquering anyone. . .deposing the illiterate little shits that run
that country is not a conquest. . .no one on Earth recognizes the
Taliban as a government (oh, and most of them REALLY CAN'T read or
write). . .what the hell would we DO with the damn place even if we
took it, which we won't, because we can't, because that'd make our
situation WORSE. The U.S. will land in Afghanistan. They will stage
military operation within that country. They will eventually get bin
Laden. Then they will leave and let the U.N. clean up.

The Taliban siezed power 6 years ago. To think that every Afghani is
supportive of those ignorant fanatics is like saying every Xtian is a
potential abortion clinic bomber. Distributing 100,000 shortwave
radios around that country would be more effective than any weapon in
the military. (And instead of Fantomas. . .how about we let the
families of some of the MUSLIMS who died in the WTC tell them what
they think of bin Laden and his "cause". The mockery he makes of their
faith. . .)

> >If resolving this issue only revolved around the history of one war I
> >would agree with you. However, Afghanistan has been chewing armies up
> >and spitting out the bloody chunks for centuries. Can someone repost

Yeah, go ahead and compare people riding around on horses with bolt
action rifles to microband radar that can track a mortar shell as soon
as it breaks the horizon and provide targetting coordinates to high
altitude bombers before the shell even hits. The Soviet opinion has no
validity either, a.) they are bitter, b.) they fought a different
style of war, c.) their technology was 10 years behind ours 15 years
ago when they fought the Afghanis, d.) we backed the Mujahadeen.

. . .and bin Laden barely has a friend left in the world, even the
Taliban is split. . .

Deacon Nekkid
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: "they were the most effective force he has ever faced"
From: "Blackout" <blackout@404infomagic.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 6:31 PM
Message-ID: <4gPq7.581$N67.524518@news.uswest.net>

"statichiss" wrote

> Let me describe the single, key difference between every army that has
> ever fought and lost in Afghanistan and what the U.S. is about to do.
> . .they were attempting a war of conquest. The U.S. has no intention
> of conquering anyone. . .deposing the illiterate little shits that run
> that country is not a conquest. . .no one on Earth recognizes the
> Taliban as a government (oh, and most of them REALLY CAN'T read or
> write). . .what the hell would we DO with the damn place even if we
> took it, which we won't, because we can't, because that'd make our
> situation WORSE. The U.S. will land in Afghanistan. They will stage
> military operation within that country. They will eventually get bin
> Laden. Then they will leave and let the U.N. clean up.

wow. that sounds REALLY GREAT! you have it ALL FIGURED OUT!

but then again you have never been there either so I'm going to have toc
hange categories from wishful thinking snot nosed american know it all
and go with grizzled Russian war vet or $500, Alex.

I'm guessing every single time anybody went in there a bunch of
nincompoops went "yeah but the ________'s that tried it last time were a
bunch of dumbfucks but not us man, we are gonna KICK ASS because they
didn't have ________ or the advantage of __________".

and then proceeded to get their asses kicked.

maybe the baseballapplepiechevrolet missles will work against people
with nothing to lose that will die for their cause that can pop up out
of nowhere and go back there instantly after they blow off a bunch of
up-up-down-left-jumpjumpjump nintendo dork's heads/peckers but it
doesn't seem very likely to anybody that has thought about it for more
than a 3 minute hate's worth.

"the white man is brave when he's got tanks, he's brave when he's got
bombs, he's brave when he's got a whole lot of company along with him.
But you take that little man from Africa or Asia and turn him loose in
the woods with a blade,,,,,,that's all he needs, all he needs is a
blade,,,,,,and when the sun goes down and it's dark, IT'S EVEN STEVEN"
Malcolm X - The Ballot or The Bullet Speech

>
> The Taliban siezed power 6 years ago. To think that every Afghani is
> supportive of those ignorant fanatics is like saying every Xtian is a
> potential abortion clinic bomber. Distributing 100,000 shortwave
> radios around that country would be more effective than any weapon in
> the military. (And instead of Fantomas. . .how about we let the
> families of some of the MUSLIMS who died in the WTC tell them what
> they think of bin Laden and his "cause". The mockery he makes of their
> faith. . .)

on this I agree with you, and it may well be the only chance they have
of getting out with their pants.

> > >If resolving this issue only revolved around the history of one war
I
> > >would agree with you. However, Afghanistan has been chewing armies
up
> > >and spitting out the bloody chunks for centuries. Can someone
repost
>
> Yeah, go ahead and compare people riding around on horses with bolt
> action rifles to microband radar that can track a mortar shell as soon
> as it breaks the horizon and provide targetting coordinates to high
> altitude bombers before the shell even hits.

you will be comparing them sooner than you think. those people have been
practicing for this hardcore for 20+ years and you actually think a
bunch of teenagers are going to go open up a succesful can off whoopass
on them? they might get it opened but,,,,,,,,,,,,,

> The Soviet opinion has no
> validity either, a.) they are bitter, b.) they fought a different
> style of war, c.) their technology was 10 years behind ours 15 years
> ago when they fought the Afghanis, d.) we backed the Mujahadeen.

what a dumbass. the Soviets fought a "different" kind of war alright,
including biological and chemical attacks and going in to villiages and
wiping out the entire male population type terror tactics. guess what?
they got their asses kicked. they tried every dirty trick they knew and
then got out of dodge. They made #1 on the world's greatest committers
of atrocities lists, and then packed up their shit and said FUCK THIS
NOISE, IT'S NOT WORTH IT.

they had this other soviet vet on tv the other night and they were
asking him about what they had learned and he said every conventional
tactic was pretty much useless in Afghanistan. They asked him what the
soviets had figured out were effective techniques and he said b-52 type
carpet bombing entire areas was the only thing they figure out that
would work and once they started the only way to effectively stop them
from running down the mountain passes and getting away was by "vigorous
application of Napalm". at which point they cut away because they were
looking for stuff that sounded more like a spell of enchantment or a
Vulcan nerve pinch type tactic, not in your face blood and gore and guts
and veins in your teeth type shit that just depresses the masses and
makes them buy less of the things they advertise on such programs.

fuck yes they are bitter, they got their asses kicked by a bunch of
stone age guys that wipe their butts with rocks (thanks to
you-know-who).

> . . .and bin Laden barely has a friend left in the world, even the
> Taliban is split. . .

OBL is dead meat, make no mistake about it. even if he didn't do it,
which is where my money is still riding.

> Deacon Nekkid

have you enlisted yet? if it's going to be such a cakewalk you sure
wouldn't want to miss out on any of the glory, right? let us know how it
turns out, we need brave gullible men like you on the front. NO? WHY
NOT? GET YOUR COWARDLY ASS DOWN THERE AND BUCK UP FOR JESUS YOU PUSSY.
tough talk is CHEAP when it's someone else's teenagers you plan on
stoking the fires of righteousness with.

think - REVENGE

think - JUSTICE

think - AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE

think - BE ALL YOU CAN BE

because otherwise, you'll start thinking about actual brains and
eyeballs on the end of bayonets which is a real drag.

ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE YOURS.

Back to document index

Original file name: "they were the most effective f - converted on Monday, 24 September 2001, 21:28