China invaded Vietnam in 1979 too, remember. But they lost that one.
Well more like calling a spoon a spade IMO.
Core tenets of fascism:
Nationalism - China, yes sort of
Imperialism - well there is Tibet but they are not really bent on military domination of the world
Authoritarianism - Yep
Social Darwinism - no evidence of that but core part of Fascism leading to millions being killed
Social interventionism - yep
Indoctrination - yep
Abortion, eugenics, euthanasia - well abortion for the one child policy but not the mass slaughter of the mentally ill and disabled (and anyone else) as far as I know
Gender roles - not really
Economic policies, the Third Way - yep
Economic planning - yep but decreasing
So some big similarities but also some big differences.
The US will never win a war in Afghanistan or Iraq. It's just pure arrogance to think they'll be able to do something no one else has done before. The Soviet eventually gave up and the americans will do the same. It's up to the people in their own country to sort out their mess and see what comes out.
Life may have improved for some in Kabul but the cost of ousting the Taliban was to reinstall warlords in provinces who feed their armies with drug money. Record crops since the Taliban was ousted... Billions down the drain, lives lost and not really much better off
Might as well save some money and get out...
Terrorism is in part a result of the imperialistic behavior of countries. There's no way that a conventional war can be won against powers like the US or the UK so when they make it about attrition knowing full well that the people in those countries are not prepared to lose lives for things that happen in places across the world and public opinion eventually makes it difficult to continue.
As long as the US/NATO will continue to intervene and try to install their version of democracy around the world, there will be terrorism.
Obviously poor people have less to lose so it has to be part of the strategy to somehow offer up hope and opportunities for citizens of that country but that will not be accomplished with an army.
While President Obamas actions are politically astute and necessary if he is to have a chance at a second term, this threat of religious extremism is less real than imagined. Yes, there are huge dangers there and if not careful more will happen on US soil but this battle is nuts. This decision has nothing to do with winning some ill conceived war in Afghanistan but making sure Obama doesn't look weak which is even worse than blowing US$30 billion more a year on 30,000 more troops which works out to a million per troop per year over there.
One of the downfalls of the USSR was their folly in Afghanistan which is the nation that continues to provide over 85% of the heroin that is found on the streets of Canada despite the Canadian soldiers being assigned there stupidly. The Canadians do not destroy poppy crops because when they did this it just created more fighters against them. The Afghans fighting troops increase only after the crop is in so it was bad tactics to actually do something to prevent crime on Canadian soil something that leads to more violence, deaths and crimes from robbery to break ins to stolen vehicles in Vancouver than any religious nuts could bring about.
This makes for an interesting read. The problem in Afghanistan much like in Vietnam is that there is no army that will stand toe to toe or in one place that shoot down or kill with superior missile technology.
http://sfr-21.org/sources/afghanistan.html
EXCERPTS AND LESSONS FOR OTHER NATIONS!!!
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a repeat of their invasion of Czechoslovakia.... Some Westerners recalled the British experiences in Afghanistan and waited for a Soviet "Vietnam" to emerge, but most Westerners believed that the Soviets would ultimately prevail....
The initial active resistance by the Afghan military was confined to a short battle against the Soviet Spetsnaz 1 unit storming the Presidential Palace. However, the stunned citizens of this geographically isolated land immediately rose to defend their land. In defiance of the wisdom of conventional warfare, the citizens armed themselves, gathered into loose formations and began to attack and sabotage the superior occupying force's personnel, installations, depots and transport with any available weapons (to include flintlock muskets). Open resistance flared so quickly that only two months after the invasion, (on the night of 23 February 1980) almost the entire population of Kabul climbed on their rooftops and chanted with one voice "God is Great". This open defiance of the Russian generals who could physically destroy their city was matched throughout the countryside. The Afghan warrior society sent thousands of warriors against their northern invader.
How did the Soviets get it so wrong? The Russian Empire studied the area and maneuvered against the British over Afghanistan in "the great game" of the last century. The Soviet Union had diplomatic ties with Afghanistan since 1919 and extensive bilateral trade contacts since the 1930s. Soviet economic and military advisers had been a constant feature in Afghanistan since 1950. The Soviets built much of Afghanistan's road network (including the Salang tunnel) and airfields. The Soviet General Staff must have been quite knowledgeable about the geography, economy, sociology and military forces of Afghanistan. Yet, their force commitment, initially assessed as requiring several months, lasted ten years and required increasing numbers of Soviet forces. It proved a bloody experience in which the Soviet Union reportedly killed 1.3 million people and forced five and a half million Afghans (a third of the prewar population) to leave the country as refugees. Another two million Afghans were forced to migrate within the country. Today, the countryside is ravaged and littered with mines. On a percentage basis, the Soviet Union inflicted more suffering on Afghanistan than Germany inflicted on the Soviet Union during World War II.
The Soviet concept for military occupation of Afghanistan was based on the following:
# stabilizing the country by garrisoning the main routes, major cities, airbases and logistics sites;
# relieving the Afghan government forces of garrison duties and pushing them into the countryside to battle the resistance;
# providing logistic, air, artillery and intelligence support to the Afghan forces;
# providing minimum interface between the Soviet occupation forces and the local populace;
# accepting minimal Soviet casualties; and,
# strengthening the Afghan forces, so once the resistance was defeated, the Soviet Army could be withdrawn.
Last edited by Football16; 03-12-2009 at 03:40 PM. Reason: add a link
I knew my post would get my red blob rate up but this one blows my mind. How stupid can someone be to not understand my point whether they agree or disagree? I was still editing and adding the Aghan Soviet war analysis from experts when this arrived. Too funny but why not post up what is wrong with my thinking than something so stupid as this! I think this person is the same person with the same post when I posted about Obama election night. An over sensitive American perhaps who should get their head out of their arse.
You should try to write logically, so people could perhaps understand what you are talking about.