Like your mom, everybody's been there, done that, regreted it.

Just like the Roman Empire, we've overextended our reach.

Win over their hearts and minds.

I say give every one of them an XBox.

_{(Yes, and a generator, and a TV, and a job, and a pizza delivery service, and clean water, and etc etc...)}

something about a land war in asia

How in the world could these resistance groups be getting funding? It's not like there is an otherwise worthless plant that is easily grown and, when refined, can be sold for thousands of dollars an ounce on the streets of first world countries because the government foolishly gives control of that product over to criminals by making that plant illegal in the misguided belief that making it illegal will make people stop using it.

Oh wait,

It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

Fortunately, there aren't any competing superpowers pouring billions of dollars through a friendly proxy to support a (well, largely) unified resistance.

That would complicate things.

As well, pouring another 100,000 troops into the area might actually be counterproductive, as the non-combat support services would simply present more targets.

Stay informed here. Things aren't good in Afghanistan and Obama is going to have a lot to deal with. I hope he makes the right decisions.

filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying. because no major superpower is covertly supplying them with free high-tech weapons.

FTFY.

filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

The Soviets had a proxy war. We're botching a counterinsurgency.

At this juncture, Pakistan's such a clusterfark that I don't know that 25,000, 40,000, 50,000 more troops on the ground would provide the kind of solution we're looking for. We'll be able to mop up some of the general lawlessness, but cross-border raids are going to be a constant reality.

If only someone had written a book about such a thing....

filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

you realize the Taliban controls 74% of the cities and towns as of last week, right?

filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

How do you figure?

The Soviets also walked over Afghanistan in their initial invasion. With combined land and airborne forces, they occupied all the major cities and roads within days. The problem? Afghan infrastructure is so poorly developed that those areas represent an insignificant part of Afghan territory.

They spent the next 8 years chasing guerrillas up and down hills. They supported a totally unpopular and ineffective communist Afghan government. When the war became economically nonviable, they withdrew.

jeffwashingdc: filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

you realize the Taliban controls 74% of the cities and towns as of last week, right?

74% sounds awfully precise, like it was pulled out of your ass.

Because People in power are Stupid: Win over their hearts and minds.

I say give every one of them an XBox.

(Yes, and a generator, and a TV, and a job, and a pizza delivery service, and clean water, and etc etc...)

you know, even that plan still probably wouldn't cost us $700B

filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

Citation needed.

The Soviets didn't have ISAFs approval ratings (new window)

I've noticed a strong correlation between the "Fail" tag and the need for an "Obvious" tag.

What might I infer from this observation?

/ Class? Anyone? Beuhler?

Speaking of Afghanistan, has anyone seen the movie The Beast of War about the Soviet tank crew in Afghanistan? That movie was awesome.
IMDB (new window)

Fano: jeffwashingdc: filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

you realize the Taliban controls 74% of the cities and towns as of last week, right?

74% sounds awfully precise, like it was pulled out of your ass.

Sorry, libs like me don't know how your ilk does it. I have better things to do than to fellate Bush riding a unicorn.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/report-talibans-influence-agai n- spreading-fast/

A quick google gives me 72% from the washington times.

I guess you missed the part where we have very limited forces in the region.....and there have been elections....and the current government is a democratic one.

But I can see how that is similar to the USSR sending in huge numbers of conscript soldiers and reducing the population to veritable slavery in the process...

Yeah good luck with the moral relativism.

The USSR lost 15,000+ soldiers and are estimated to have killed at least one MILLION unarmed Afghan citizens.


The fail is in the headline.

I guess I'm the only one holding any of you accountable for the absurd claims you throw about.

kmmontandon: filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

Fortunately, there aren't any competing superpowers pouring billions of dollars through a friendly proxy to support a (well, largely) unified resistance.

That would complicate things.

As well, pouring another 100,000 troops into the area might actually be counterproductive, as the non-combat support services would simply present more targets.

not billions, but somewhere in the range of a few million. I'm looking at you, Pakistani ISI.

jeffwashingdc: Fano: jeffwashingdc: filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

you realize the Taliban controls 74% of the cities and towns as of last week, right?

74% sounds awfully precise, like it was pulled out of your ass.

Sorry, libs like me don't know how your ilk does it. I have better things to do than to fellate Bush riding a unicorn.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/report-talibans-influence-agai n- spreading-fast/

A quick google gives me 72% from the washington times.

A Taliban presence does not mean they control the area.

jeffwashingdc: Fano: jeffwashingdc: filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

you realize the Taliban controls 74% of the cities and towns as of last week, right?

74% sounds awfully precise, like it was pulled out of your ass.

Sorry, libs like me don't know how your ilk does it. I have better things to do than to fellate Bush riding a unicorn.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/report-talibans-influence-agai n- spreading-fast/

A quick google gives me 72% from the washington times.

I belong to an ilk. Gosh, that might be hard to tell from my upthread post.

eddyatwork: Just like the Roman Empire, we've overextended our reach.

Except roman's empire lasted what, 1500 years, 2000 if you include the Roman Republic. How long has it been for the American 'empire'?

jeffwashingdc: Fano: jeffwashingdc: filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

you realize the Taliban controls 74% of the cities and towns as of last week, right?

74% sounds awfully precise, like it was pulled out of your ass.

Sorry, libs like me don't know how your ilk does it. I have better things to do than to fellate Bush riding a unicorn.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/report-talibans-influence-agai n- spreading-fast/

A quick google gives me 72% from the washington times.

I really hate to say it dude. But if ONE freakin' paper claims it isn't necessarily true. While I do agree that Afghanistan is a pretty bad mistake, because one paper says something doesn't make it true. I'm sure you could find Russian papers from their era of Afghanistan claiming that it was a remarkable success. Something we all have to realize is that the news media is going to do whatever necessary to tear down the American way, especially internationally.

Again, I realize invading Afghan was a gaff, but at the same time, when is the last time a portion of that county was ruled by a democratic government?

Meh. Ask the Brits about it too.

Massa Damnata: eddyatwork: Just like the Roman Empire, we've overextended our reach.

Except roman's empire lasted what, 1500 years, 2000 if you include the Roman Republic. How long has it been for the American 'empire'?

Waah wah wah waaaaaaah~~~
Sad trombone; is very sad

Huh...really?

Soviets lost 15,000 in 10 years. The US/NATO in 7 years have lost around a 1,000.

So we are having alot more luck than the Soviets.

Ask the Taliban how we are doing.

This isn't a tv drama with a beginning, middle and end. It's called real life. The only way to have an ending (everyone lives "happily ever after" kind) is to do a lot of killing of murderous ignorant simpletons that inhabit the uncivilized world. But all you bedwetters who complain about the "endlessness" would turn around and scream bloody murder if we were to do that. So it's you simpletons in the civilized world who are the cause of the "endlessness".

/stick to fiction if you want a nice tidy ending

Afghanistan is just another Bush fark-up. Everybody screws the pooch now and then, but this guy can't seem to get anything right.

Nimnom: Anti-Soviet militants controlled "the rural areas," says a former Soviet official. Today's militants have a "permanent presence" in 72 percent of the country, according to a Dec. 8 study.

Much like the crypts have a 'permanent presence' in Southern California. That doesn't mean its not decisively under US control.

First correct use of the "Fail" tag I've yet seen.

As ham-handed as the NATO occupation has been at times, it's grossly unfair to compare it to the Soviet occupation. NATO forces may occasionally misuse the overwhelming firepower at their disposal, but they're not gassing villages, they're not carpet-bombing entire areas from high altitude, and they're not scattering booby traps disguised as children's toys. They're at least trying to win "hearts and minds" through regional development programs (schools, medical clinics, wells, etc.), which the Soviets never did. Failure in Afghanistan is still a possibility, but it will come as a result of an incomplete effort, not as a result of unrepentant savagery.

archichris: I guess you missed the part where we have very limited forces in the region.....and there have been elections....and the current government is a democratic one.

But I can see how that is similar to the USSR sending in huge numbers of conscript soldiers and reducing the population to veritable slavery in the process...

Yeah good luck with the moral relativism.

Vietnam, 1965 "The French were fighting to turn them back into a colony, we're fighting to bring democracy and free them from communism" -some American

Doesn't matter brother, in their eyes you're still a foreign invader, and they'll fight you nonetheless.

if Soviet war in Afghanistan = NATO war in Afghanistan,

then Bush = Brezhnev,

thus Obama = Gorbachev.

Nothing to worry about, then.

Massa Damnata: Except roman's empire lasted what, 1500 years, 2000 if you include the Roman Republic. How long has it been for the American 'empire'?

We're currently approaching "fair to middlin'". Rome and China are the real heavyweights, then you get the rest of the big players like the Ottomans, the British, and the Russians.

In another century or two, we get to rub elbows with most of the European club.

Sure were a lot of words for something that has a truly simple answer: GW Bush. I realize that he is semi-retarded and I realize that his base thinks that he is just like them, but I don't have to like either situation.

kmmontandon: filth: It makes for an awfully funny headline, but really, we're doing 10X better in Afghanistan than the Sovites did, and that's without really trying.

Fortunately, there aren't any competing superpowers pouring billions of dollars through a friendly proxy to support a (well, largely) unified resistance.

That would complicate things.

As well, pouring another 100,000 troops into the area might actually be counterproductive, as the non-combat support services would simply present more targets.

No superpower fighting proxy? O.K. I'll give you that one :)
True that there is no single superpower such as the good 'ol days... NATO vs. Warsaw Pact.

But today there's a whole bunches of little mini-powers that hate the U.S. foreign policy like the Saudies, the Iranians, the Syrian etcs.... basically the whole Middle East.Not to mention the Chinese, N Korean and Hugo Chaves.

Together all those mini-powers form a pretty big opponent.

You know who else fought a war on two fronts?

WAIT WAIT WAIT. Didn't we support the Afghans in the Soviet invasion? Last I checked the Afghans aren't flying MIGs...

Koichi: Doesn't matter brother, in their eyes you're still a foreign invader, and they'll fight you nonetheless.

Actually, we're not

2007 Environics Poll

What do Afghans think about the multitude of foreign countries that have been present in their country over the past five years? Most believe this has been a positive presence. Six in ten (60%) Afghans say the foreign presence is a good thing for their country, compared with 16 percent who say it is a bad thing; another 22 percent are more ambivalent

versus what they think of the Taliban

What is public opinion of the Taliban, who ruled the country prior to 2002? When asked, almost three quarters of Afghans nationwide have a very negative (53%) or somewhat negative (20%) opinion of the Taliban, compared with only 14 percent who hold a positive view. Opinions are marginally less critical in Kandahar (67% negative versus 20% positive), and among Pashtuns (64% negative versus 26% positive). Moreover, the public is most likely to believe that the Taliban enjoys the support of only a few Afghans (50%), rather than some (24%) or most (7%), with Kandahar opinion only slightly more positive toward the Taliban.

Massa Damnata: eddyatwork: Just like the Roman Empire, we've overextended our reach.

Except roman's empire lasted what, 1500 years, 2000 if you include the Roman Republic. How long has it been for the American 'empire'?

Well if you count 1776 as the start, that's about 233 years. Can Bush finish the job of destroying America within the eight years of his presidency? I don't know. Time is running short, but there is still time for another catastrophe.

El_Swino: As ham-handed as the NATO occupation has been at times, it's grossly unfair to compare it to the Soviet occupation. NATO forces may occasionally misuse the overwhelming firepower at their disposal, but they're not gassing villages, they're not carpet-bombing entire areas from high altitude, and they're not scattering booby traps disguised as children's toys. They're at least trying to win "hearts and minds" through regional development programs (schools, medical clinics, wells, etc.), which the Soviets never did. Failure in Afghanistan is still a possibility, but it will come as a result of an incomplete effort, not as a result of unrepentant savagery.

stop making sense. Can't you see we're making the obvious Bush=Soviet Russia connection in here?

joltek wrote,
>>>>>>You know who else fought a war on two fronts?

Well played!!

Don't worry, history has shown middle eastern people don't hold grudges. Your grandchildren have nothing to fear.




I mean, what's 92,000 dead between friends? Their families will GET OVER IT. Just like Americans do.

zefal: Ask the Taliban how we are doing.

This isn't a tv drama with a beginning, middle and end. It's called real life. The only way to have an ending (everyone lives "happily ever after" kind) is to do a lot of killing of murderous ignorant simpletons that inhabit the uncivilized world. But all you bedwetters who complain about the "endlessness" would turn around and scream bloody murder if we were to do that. So it's you simpletons in the civilized world who are the cause of the "endlessness".

/stick to fiction if you want a nice tidy ending

We have nukes. We don't have to mess up other peoples' countries to ensure our survival. We just have to make sure we do our economics well. We've been neglecting that pretty severely to fight this war.