Title: The Military and Political Decline of the West Source:
[None] URL Source:http://www.liveleak.com Published:Aug 5, 2015 Author:sneakypete Post Date:2015-08-05 14:09:12 by sneakypete Keywords:None Views:1380 Comments:15
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *Religious History and Issues*, *The Two Parties ARE the Same*, *Crime and Corruption*, *Military or Vets Affairs*, *Politics and Politicians*, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#0)
ping
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#3. To: sneakypete, Fred Mertz, A Pole, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#0)(Edited)
A retired senior Admiral outlines the rise of Islam and the decline of the west in plain words anyone can understand.
In the late 1800s the British empire trained and armed a nation of religous fanatics in an effort to hem in a threat to their empire.
The nation the Brits trained was Imperial Japan which went on to defeat the Russian empire in 1905 (financed by Russian Jacob Schiff in Wall Street as revenge for pogroms).
Less than 40 years later these very same Japanese, using the navy the British helped build attacked the British empire in Asia and ended European colonial rule in most of Asia and were allied with the Nazis (Oops, Jacob Schiff).
----
History reapets itself when Reagan armed the jihdis to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in an updated version of The Great Game.
Less than 20 years later, the USA finds itself fighting a world wide jihad lead by the very same jihadists it armed and trained to fight the Russians.
History reapets itself when Reagan armed the jihdis to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in an updated version of The Great Game.
Even though I have negative feelings about any involvement by us in the Muddle East,you have to admit that the ragheads are a MUCH less serious threat than the USSR was.
And will remain a much less serious threat unless we screw up and continue to pretend to fight them while ignoring their financiers and clerics.
Which does seem to be precisely what we are doing.
I have said it before and I will say it again,NOBODY ever won a war by killing privates. If you want to win a war you MUST take out the enemy leadership and their financing. If you do both early,there won't even be a need to destroy their infastructure and cause their common people to suffer.
I have absolutely zero faith we are going to do what we should be doing,though.IMHO we are going to continue doing what we are doing bnow,which is wasting lives on both sides while creating new enemy fighters to go against us with ever day that passes.
If you are going to fight a war,fight a damn war! If you're not going to fight,pack it all up and bring it and the troops back home and be done with it.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
If you are going to fight a war,fight a damn war! If you're not going to fight,pack it all up and bring it and the troops back home and be done with it.
Even though I have negative feelings about any involvement by us in the Muddle East,you have to admit that the ragheads are a MUCH less serious threat than the USSR was.
yes and no.
The problem is many people kind of make the assumption that the USA's funding of jihadists helped destroy the USSR. That is not the case. It had almost zero to do with the collapse of the USSR. The USSR would have collapsed exactly the same way at exactly the same time if the Afghanistan war was never funded by the CIA. Even if the USSR never invaded Afghanistan it would have collapsed the exact same way.
So that makes all that effort to arm jihdist crazies that much more of a waste when 9/11 is factored in. Of course at that time no one in the USA would know this. In fact as the USA was collapsing on TV, the CIA totally missed the event - it was presenting the USSR stronger than ever as it was collapsing. Either they wanted more of a budget increase in the CIA or they were clouded by their personal feelings or were incompetants.
WASHINGTON, May 20— Responding to criticism that the Central Intelligence Agency failed to forecast the collapse of the Soviet system, its director, Robert M. Gates, today conceded shortcomings in the agency's analysis, but defended its overall performance over the years.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, who wrote in 1979 that the Soviet Union would break up in the 1980's, has called for the dissolution of the agency. The Senate and House intelligence committees have introduced bills calling for sweeping reorganization of the entire intelligence apparatus of the Government.
The problem is many people kind of make the assumption that the USA's funding of jihadists helped destroy the USSR. That is not the case.
It had almost zero to do with the collapse of the USSR.
I disagree. Mostly. Yes,that is correct IF you ONLY consider the challenge to the Soviets in Afghanistan. Which is not what was happening or had been happening. We had been butting heads with the USSR and their proxies ever since the Korean War.
The USSR would have collapsed exactly the same way at exactly the same time if the Afghanistan war was never funded by the CIA. Even if the USSR never invaded Afghanistan it would have collapsed the exact same way.
Yes,but not in the same timeframe. Communism creates an impossible economic system either quickly dominates the entire world economy,or it fails.
The prime questions are "WHEN will it fail,and how many people have to suffer whie waiting for it to fail?
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York,
I couldn't care less what Peppermint Patty had to say. He was a bright guy,but he toed the company line.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Afghanistan war may have prolonged the Cold War. The USSR could have collapsed sooner if they were not motivated into winning in Afghanistan.
Maybe it's just me,but I'd sure like to hear an explanation on how the Soviet Union would have gone bankrupt and collapsed sooner by taking financial pressure off of them.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Afghanistan war may have prolonged the Cold War. The USSR could have collapsed sooner if they were not motivated into winning in Afghanistan.
Maybe it's just me,but I'd sure like to hear an explanation on how the Soviet Union would have gone bankrupt and collapsed sooner by taking financial pressure off of them.
The same way Germany held on longer after the war was lost when Hitler was in power or Japan. Because the allies said they would not negotiate unless it was total surrender the Japs and Germans fought on beyond the conditions they would have surrendered.
Gorbachev wanted to end the system but as long as there was fighting in Afghanistan he had less wiggle room with the hawks.
The same way Germany held on longer after the war was lost when Hitler was in power or Japan. Because the allies said they would not negotiate unless it was total surrender the Japs and Germans fought on beyond the conditions they would have surrendered.
Gorbachev wanted to end the system but as long as there was fighting in Afghanistan he had less wiggle room with the hawks.
Nice theory,but I ain't buying it.
The Red Army was the 700 lb gorilla sitting in the corner nobody wanted to notice,and it was necessary for them to be disgusted and worn out before the system could collapse. The only thing that could do that would be to get them worn down from fighting wars they knew they couldn't win.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
There is zero evidence the red army was worn out from Afghanistan. I read that USSR sent mostly Asiatics there to fight.
I met several vets of the Red Army Afghanistan "adventure" on my two trips to Russia in the 90's,and none of them were Asian. One did marry a Asian girl he met there,though.
There is zero evidence to indicate Afghanistan hastened the collapse of the USSR.
Your "Politically Correct Blinders for Leftists" need some adjustment.
Either that,or it is your total lack of knowledge and experience with the military that keeps you from seeing what is obvious to everyone else in the world.
Probably both,plus a unhealthy dab of "Leftist mis-education".
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
In 1988, the Soviet army left Afghanistan after a concerted campaign by the western-backed mujahideen. But since then, many enduring myths have grown up about the war-torn country. In his new book, Jonathan Steele sorts the fact from the fiction
3. The USSR suffered a massive military defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the mujahideen
This is one of the most persistent myths of Afghan history. It has been trumpeted by every former mujahideen leader, from Osama bin Laden and Taliban commanders to the warlords in the current Afghan government. It is also accepted unthinkingly as part of the western narrative of the war. Some western politicians go so far as to say that the alleged Soviet defeat in Afghanistan helped to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. On this they agree with Bin Laden and al-Qaida's other leaders, who claim they destroyed one superpower and are on their way to destroying another.
The reality is the Afghan mujahideen did not defeat the Soviets on the battlefield. They won some important encounters, notably in the Panjshir valley, but lost others. In sum, neither side defeated the other. The Soviets could have remained in Afghanistan for several more years but they decided to leave when Gorbachev calculated that the war had become a stalemate and was no longer worth the high price in men, money and international prestige. In private, US officials came to the same conclusion about Soviet strength, although they only admitted it publicly later. Morton Abramowitz, who directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the time, said in 1997: "In 1985, there was a real concern that the [mujahideen] were losing, that they were sort of being diminished, falling apart. Losses were high and their impact on the Soviets was not great."
4. The CIA's supply of Stinger missiles to the mujahideen forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan
This myth of the 1980s was given new life by George Crile's 2003 book Charlie Wilson's War and the 2007 film of the same name, starring Tom Hanks as the loud-mouthed congressman from Texas. Both book and movie claim that Wilson turned the tide of the war by persuading Ronald Reagan to supply the mujahideen with shoulder-fired missiles that could shoot down helicopters. The Stingers certainly forced a shift in Soviet tactics. Helicopter crews switched their operations to night raids since the mujahideen had no night-vision equipment. Pilots made bombing runs at greater height, thereby diminishing the accuracy of the attacks, but the rate of Soviet and Afghan aircraft losses did not change significantly from what it was in the first six years of the war.
The Soviet decision to withdraw from Afghanistan was made in October 1985, several months before Stinger missiles entered Afghanistan in significant quantities in the autumn of 1986. None of the secret Politburo discussions that have since been declassified mentioned the Stingers or any other shift in mujahideen equipment as the reason for the policy change from indefinite occupation to preparations for retreat.
Oh,yeah. If there is one place you want to go in search of the truth,it is a left-wing British newspaper. (sarcasm)
The British left make the US Dims look like fire-breathing conservatives by comparison.
10 myths about Afghanistan
In 1988, the Soviet army left Afghanistan after a concerted campaign by the western-backed mujahideen. But since then, many enduring myths have grown up about the war-torn country. In his new book, Jonathan Steele sorts the fact from the fiction
3. The USSR suffered a massive military defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the mujahideen
This is one of the most persistent myths of Afghan history.
I agree that one is a myth. The Soviets were fighting a purely guerilla war in Afghanistan,and you can NOT defeat guerrillas using conventional military means and personell. That has never happened in the past,and will never happen in the future because guerrillas NEVER stand and fight using conventional tactics or forces. They hit and run,and haul ass the instant things start to turn bad for them and just disappear.
Which is related to one myth about VN,and how the "US Army never defeated the Vietnamese communists." Which is pure bullshit. We beat them like rented mules,both the Viet Cong guerillas as well as the North Vietnamese regular army.
We defeated the VC using guerilla warfare methods against them,and our conventional army destroyed the NVA.
Not to mention the fact that the NVA itself destroyed the VC by calling them out of cover for Tet of 68. They were pretty much wiped out after Tet,and were never a concern again for anyone. After that it was purely a NVA war on the communist side.
What happened to the Soviets was "The death of a thousand cuts" absolutely destroyed their morale,and even in a police state like the old Soviet Union,the moral of the cannon fodder makes a difference because when it reaches a low,the Officers that give the orders have to start watching their backs to keep their own men from killing them. The professional officer corps realized they were doing accomplishing absolutely nothing positive from either a military or a political viewpoint,and were only destroying their own equipment and losing trained and experienced officers and men for no good reason whatsoever.
Unlike the west,there were no corporate vampires in the USSR that owned the factories that produced the armaments and everything else required to go to and maintain a war footing because the government herself owned all the factories. No large political contributors whispering in the Generals shell-like ears about kickbacks or in the Politburo ears about "jobs for the workers that will get you reelected".
Frankly,the Soviet Union was already basically bankrupt,and since it was a police state that didn't give a damn about what the public thought,none of the Politburo members could be bribed to keep it going. Yeah,the Politburo ran things,but they always had the VERY large shadow of the Red Army keeping them in the shade. Even Stalin was terrified the Red Army was going to come after him after the Nazi's invaded the USSR.
The reality is the Afghan mujahideen did not defeat the Soviets on the battlefield.
Actually,they did. Damn near every single time. The reason for this is simple. They fought as long as they were winning,and ran off the instant they started to lose. Running off is NOT being defeated in the military sense. You still have your armaments and you still have your soldiers.
The Soviets were just big,fat,targets riding down narrow mountain roads,and sitting ducks. The only thing that keep them from certain death every time was the presence of their HIND gunships providig them with tactical air support,and this advantage disappeared when the guerillas got their hands on Stinger missiles. Once that happend the Hinds were nothing more than temporary flyhing scrap.
The Soviets could have remained in Afghanistan for several more years but they decided to leave when Gorbachev calculated that the war had become a stalemate and was no longer worth the high price in men, money and international prestige.
In other words,they lost because they failed to achieve their goal of securing Afghanistan for the communist leaders they put into place.
The authors contnetion that the Stinger missiles had no effect was just the Soviets trying to save face.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
