From: Adam Flinton 

Gene McAloon wrote:

> On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:29:24 +0100, Adam Flinton

> wrote:
>
>
>>Bullsh*t. The Soviet Union was determined to stay in Afghanistan & I'm
>>sure at the time people like you were saying how there was no way some
>>bearded locals could shift the Red Army.
>>
>>Fine so you're the typical American Imperialist who can not see why any
>>foreigner might object to the imperium. Not that surprizing that the
>>Americans are so widely despised when they are completely oblivious to
>>the views of their subjected peoples.
>
>
> The bullshit is entirely yours as usual. The Soviets went into Afghanistan at
> the invitation of the Afghan government to help quell a rebellion by a rival
> communist group.

&? Your point is.....none as usual. Once they were there it was very
important to them not to be seen to be thrown out as it would affect the
  prestige of Red Army & thus it's deterrant power. However despite all
that they were thrown out by some wild & wooly ill-educated local peasants.


> They probably would have succeeded except that the utterly dumb
> Carter administration started arming the hill tribes, the same tribes that
had
> been killing teachers the Kabul government had been sending into the hills.
The
> tribes' objection was that the teachers insisted on teaching girls as well as
> boys.
>

Possibly they would, possibly they wouldn't. Saudi had a lot of spare cash
& was happily doing a large proportion of the arming all by itself.
Pakistan was also joining in with the training & arming & safe
harbouring.



> When the Soviets helicopters began being shot down by stinger missiles
supplied
> by the US through Pakistan, they Soviet casualties mounted.

They were mounting long before then. A few men die in a helicopter crash.
Compare that to a triggered landslide in front & behind an armoured
column & then a steady rain of missiles down onto the unfortunates
below.

Armour is generally thin on top. Did give the US/UK a good way to test it's
kit against real soviet targets though.


> Was it worth the
> price to stay on? In the long run, no. The Americans in Afghanistan have yet
to
> learn that lesson. But they will. The point, of course, is that the Afghan
> experience has little to do with imperialism except of course during the Brit
> presence there when they really thought they could stay on indefinitely as
they
> were sure they would in neighboring India.
>

Except of course. What cr*p. Both the USA & USSR are/were (in the case
of the USSR) colonial imperialist countries. You are a representative of a
colonial imperialist country.


> Let's try to keep in mind that a number of conquerors took over Afghanistan
and
> had little trouble ruling it.

Go on then, list em. Most who took the place lost it within a few years
excepting those who'd come from that area (e.g. the Moghuls).


> You Brits failed mostly because you had a more or
> less democratic system wherein public sentiment counted. Essentially, when
> public sentiment turned against it, there was no longer incentive to pay the
> price of conquest.  Simple as that and the desires, hatreds or whatever of
the
> conquered locals mattered little one way or the other. It has never been
> otherwise throughout history, anywhere in the world.
>

Indeed. That is a simple paraphrasing of my comments wrt how much does it
matter to you. The side to whom it matters most tends to get what it wants.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5