It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


White House says no Afghanistan pullout

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:19 AM
Back on topic peeps. Afghanistan, not Nam.

Texas National Guard (900) in "one of the biggest" Texas state troop callups since WWII - going to Afghanistan.

So, nope, doesn't look like Obama is going for the Nobel on this one.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:27 AM
The most sorrowful thing was that there was NOT ONE major battle in Vietnam that the US soldier lost. So how come the USA lost the war?

Then when the troops came home, the politicians made sure that an American soldier would be viewed as the loser -- those "baby killers" didn't fight right.

I didn't like Reagan, but he stood up for the American G.I.s. So not all politicians are rotten beyond repair.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:10 AM

Originally posted by stander
The most sorrowful thing was that there was NOT ONE major battle in Vietnam that the US soldier lost. So how come the USA lost the war?

Then when the troops came home, the politicians made sure that an American soldier would be viewed as the loser -- those "baby killers" didn't fight right.

I didn't like Reagan, but he stood up for the American G.I.s. So not all politicians are rotten beyond repair.

We lost Nam for the same reason were losing Afghanistan... as soon as we take ground we have to give it back. (They call that good will towards the rightful government)we get little to no support over there... guess the news of ammo and equipment shortages hasn't reached you yet?

Ally Baba's got no problem blowing themselves up as long as they take a few of us out in the process (See instant ticket to heaven and bunch of naked virgins) Nothing new there though the russians went through the very same gig when they were there...

Unless Obama gets off his well kissed ass and supports the troops we're going to lose this one too!

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by stander

Stander, for the umpteenth time, we did NOT lose the Vietnam war.

We left.

Three years later, the South Vietnamese government fell due to an invasion of North Vietnamese forces.

Our current problems in Afghanistan shares the same root problem we had in Vietnam.

Our generals don't know their business. Our generals are politicians in uniform. They gain those stars from pristine report writing, conflict avoidance, lack of mistakes, success working the Washington cocktail circuit, and the ability to smooch key political creases.

Our generals don't lead. They are managers - and while they are fair logisticians, they don't know the first thing about their prime responsibility, which is warmaking.

They can't fight, they can't lead, and they don't know their business.

Like being a tennis coach, and never having played a game. They just like being around short skirts.

How, I ask, can one be leading warriors in battle, if you've never personally been in battle? Never taken any scalps?

How in the hell can one lead troops when he's far removed from the troops?

They'll have a staff of close to a thousand men. Staff.

More to collect, read, analyze, summarize, and report information the THINK is critical, when a General in the field could already KNOW.

Before God, you give me 20,000 hand selected volunteers, you let me do it my way, you leave me the hell alone, and I'll end that crap in Afghanistan, and it will be over in months.

A lot of ground will get fertilized, but I'll do it just as did the only two other men to conquer Afghanistan. Except, with our modern speed, it won't take three years.

Get some combat experienced leaders and turn the dogs loose, or bring the dogs home.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by stander
But the fact is that S. Vietnam did resist the communist takeover with arms in hands, and so the conclusion that S. Vietnam lost the war with N. Vietnam is correct. But the timeline of that war is very short, much shorter than the US generals would like to admit. LOL.

I provided the timeline of the period you yourself said you were interested in.

Originally posted by stander
I'm not into any Paris Peace Talks; I'm into one segment of the Vietnam war time line:
1972 - Nixon visits China.
1973 - Cease-fire signed in Paris.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by stander
The most sorrowful thing was that there was NOT ONE major battle in Vietnam that the US soldier lost. So how come the USA lost the war?

Then when the troops came home, the politicians made sure that an American soldier would be viewed as the loser -- those "baby killers" didn't fight right.

I didn't like Reagan, but he stood up for the American G.I.s. So not all politicians are rotten beyond repair.

It wasn't the politicians who called the troops baby killers. Again crack open a real history book and look up the word "Hippies". Have you ever been to Washington DC and seen the Wall?

I have, it's a sobering testimonial to when a Government doesn't allow the troops to do what they are trained to do and that's win wars! If they don't want to win wars then they shouldn't start them!

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by FlyersFan

Hear, hear. Just like Vietnam, the US military is not being allowed to secure a decisive victory. The media and the left brought us out of Vietnam. Today, we have a President with no military experience, who trusts opinion polls and the far left more than he does generals on the ground, and who is so worried about winning the hearts and minds of a population which hates us, and will always hate us, that the US and NATO troops are fighting with their arms tied behind their backs. You know how to win in Afghanistan? Total war. Cripple the economy of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by destroying all poppy fields, establishing a kill zone between Afghanistan and Pakistan and bringing in enough troops to secure and hold territory.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:42 PM
I think the topic is about the Afghanistan campaign not Vietnam. This always seems to happen to these threads. Just remember that you are not the only country who has troops there. I'm tired of comparisons being made between different parts of history to the present. I'm not lacking in respect of the people who gave their lives to those parts of history, I just think more attention should be paid to the present. The solution to the present conflict and whether or not we should pull out won't be found by comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam any more than it would have done to compare Vietnam to the 1st Crusade for example. Rehashing who won in the previous wars is unfortunately comparable to who won the last football series. President Obama has a lot on his plate right now and I for one wouldn't want to be him or any one of his advisers. I would have to live the rest of my life with my decisions. I just watched a video about Lt. General D' Allaire that was something I think should be shown to Social Studies classes in school. Again there is comparison problems with what happened then and what is happening now. The big theory always seems to be that studying the past will help to avoid making mistakes in the future. People always tailor that theory to support their personal theories.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:53 PM
Take weeks to decide? Probably months to decide and longer to implement it while American troops are still dying without support or strategy because Obama is concern about popularity instead of concentrating on being Commander in Chief. He doesn't prosecute this war, his popularity will definitely go down even more.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by michial

I would strongly disagree with you.

Maybe you're young and have not had time to see multiple repeats of events to eventually learn from.

Any student of history, and more specifically military history should be very familiar with the three Legions of Varus. They traveled strung-out in heavy forests, had that string chopped up into little bits, and then destroyed.

A lesson for all time: never travel strung out in a long line in heavy forest.

But on November 17, 1965, elements of the 2/7th Cavalry on the way from LZ XRay to LZ Albany, also traveled in a line without sufficient flankers, and likewise had their string chopped up.

Something anyone SHOULD have known. So 150 men die.

You can elect to ignore, belittle, or hold history in contempt if you wish, but in every event, there are PRINCIPLES to be learned from the mistakes and opportunities of others.

There certainly are parallels between different wars, and the trick is to be able to find the principles involved.

Man, if you can't learn from other's mistakes, you're going to have one long, miserable life.

Or, worse, a very short one.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:14 PM
As were finally back on topic let me say the best way to stop the taliban is to cut their ability to fund their activities... "TORCH THE DAMN POPPY FIELDS"... If they cant sell opium they have no income... what they do now is send out advisers and teach them to grow other crops, corn wheat etc... do they? no, they need the money for weapons and ammo...

The poppy crop is being harvested right now and made into opium which will later be refined into heroin. In fact, two thirds of the world's heroin supply comes from southern Afghanistan. Opium production accounts for 60 percent of this country's economy and it fuels the engine for the insurgency, with the Taliban making $70 to $100 million dollars a year.

Stroy Here

[edit on 6-10-2009 by DaddyBare]

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:59 PM
*Bear with me, this is a bit long, but there is a point*

What was behind the Soviet decision in December 1979 to invade Afghanistan? And why did Mikhail Gorbachev pull out Soviet troops 10 years later? What was the role of the U.S. covert assistance program, in particular the Stinger missiles? What role did CIA intelligence play?

… the Soviet leaders' almost exclusive reliance on alarmist KGB assessments of a quickly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan in the fall of 1979—at the expense of more cautious military intelligence and diplomatic channels—constituted a critical factor in the decision to intervene.

That year, Soviet concerns mounted over the possibility of a possible U.S. intervention in Iran following the ouster of the pro-Western Shah. Moscow, moreover, feared that the United States sought a substitute foothold in Afghanistan and worried about maintaining credibility with communist world allies. Soviet leaders were genuinely concerned that Afghan strongman Hafizullah Amin was either a U.S. agent or prepared to sell out to the United States.

In mid-1979, the Carter administration began to provide non-lethal aid to the Afghan resistance movement. The Reagan administration would inherit an active program of covert military aid to the Mujahadeen that had begun in December 1979…

Over the next two years, under the leadership of CIA Director William Casey, aid developed into a sophisticated coalition effort to train the Mujahadeen resistance fighters, provide them with Czech and East German arms, and fund the whole operation.

In 1980, the government of Saudi Arabia decided to share the costs of this operation equally with the United States. In its full range of activities, the coalition included the intelligence services of the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and China.

By the time Gorbachev came to power in 1985, the war in Afghanistan was largely stalemated. The Soviet forces were mainly tied up in cities and in defending airfields and bases, leaving only roughly 15 percent of their troops for operations.

Chernayev [Gorb. foreign policy advisor] pointed to the loss of public support within the Soviet Union—as reflected in demonstrations by the mothers of soldiers, negative press reports on the campaign, and the high number of desertions—as the paramount impetus for the Gorbachev’s decision to withdraw. Gorbachev could not pursue his campaign of reform unless he ended the war in Afghanistan and sharply reduced the arms race.

Eager not to mirror the perceptions stemming from the U.S. pullout from Vietnam a decade earlier and intent on preserving a "neutral" and friendly regime in Afghanistan, Moscow leaders sought "Afghanization" without "losing the war" by stabilizing and propping up the last communist regime of Nadjibullah. With the toppling of the last communist regime in 1992, that strategy had failed.


My point? Knowing the history (especially region-specific) is critical to success [or defeat] in any campaign. Knowing what strategies worked and what didn't, who all the players are, what the political motivation of all the players are, public sentiment as well as care and support of troops committed to a region and to a strategy will all factor into policy and which direction the Administration will take.

What about the Soviet's experience is ringing similar to the US's current experience? Lack of troop support, lack of positive public opinion, an Administration with an agenda (not to mention the agenda's of region-specific peoples), and on and on... it's all eerily similar.

To neglect the lessons of the past is to be doomed to repeat the same mistakes, in the future.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by LadySkadi]

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by dooper

Thought some correction was needed in respect that we (U.S.) did not loose the war in Vietnam. A reality check is needed sure the war was lost on all fronts, from home an abroad.

The parameters are too far and wide to even state what was involved and how the mechanism's were successfully introduced into the American way of life to sway the international opinion and lets not even approach the armed forces moral and on the domestic front. As for the home front, well you have obviously have seen the history reels, the riots and demonstrations involved.

Perhaps this is why the Iraq war was so heavily monitored (wink) so as the home front will not be comprised. Although there was some form of reaction but it was well confined to a limited but available form of public scrutiny without creating too much havoc. *Do you understand* ?

As so well pointed out, China was well involved in supporting Cambodia and the then former Russian republic was backing the N.Vietnamese armed forces to an extent which we only had on paper. This is why their campaign was so successful in comparison to ours. There is no shame in admitting a loss of strategy, one must be focused on a 50+ year strategy to be were we are today.

"It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War"

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by tristar

True that depends on your perspective.

But why play down China's support for North Vietnam? As a matter of fact the Chinese lost more Personnel in supporting the North Vietnamese than the US has lost in Afghanistan (Wink)
US losses Afghanistan as of 2009
869 dead

North Vietnam & NLF 1,176,000 dead/missing;
600,000+ wounded

China 1,446 dead; 4,200 wounded

Soviet Union 16 dead

Total dead: ~1,177,446
Total wounded: ~604,000+

[edit on 6-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Correct, do not forget the surplus of what and how ever vulgar this may sound. There is and they have a surplus of human resources.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:53 PM

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by stander

Stander, for the umpteenth time, we did NOT lose the Vietnam war.

We left.

After Hitler called off Operation Citadel, the Wehrmacht was losing ground more rapidly. Of course the Germans were not losing the war with Russia, they were just leaving the Soviet Union.

WTF are you trying with me, man? Does someone pay you for your idiotic counsel?

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:00 PM
When you say "Pull Out" it kind of makes it sound sexual. Perhaps withdraw is a better turn of the phrase for a war. I guess the Afghan people could say they were screwed in this deal.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:04 PM
reply to post by wayouttheredude

I do understand your humor, but this has nothing to do with the Afghanistan people let alone their elected structured government.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by tristar

Your reality check that the war was lost on ALL fronts is not a reality check. I don't know from who's ass this tidbit was extracted from, but inform them that isn't accurate.

I had a college professor tell us the same thing, and then I had to correct him as well. The truth is, half the **** that comes out of the mouth of academia is biased BS that has only a little basis in fact, whereas the BS end of it is spread by a factor of ten to the sixth power.

The military forces in Vietnam never suffered a defeat.

There goes your postulation.

Not only did they prevail on the battlefields, but the kill ratios ranged from almost parity in the cities to 150:1 in Special Operations activities.

Since you like Sun Tzu, here's one for you: "There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited."

There is a reason the Masters of Warfare without exception state that all men, weaponry, and method should be introduced with maximum violence on the front end, to conclude a war quickly.

We had whiz kids in Washington. They'd take out their slide rules, run their calculations with statistical analysis, and then determine our strategy, weapons mix, and tactical preferences.

They mistakenly believe that our opponents were mind readers and introduced the concept of "graduated response," the most ****ed up concept of warfare ever conceived. May those men burn in hell.

While the military/soldiers held up their end in spite of being compelled to fight with one arm tied behind their backs, it was in essence the political restraints from Washington that diluted our successes. Our generals were selected based on mistaken political criteria, and they simply didn't know their job. Again, a problem on the political end.

We still had memories of ****loads of screaming Chinese pouring across the Korean border, and so our options were limited to an offensive defense.

A good offensive defense will prevent you from losing, but restricts your abilities to conclusively win.

Johnson was such a military phenomenon, he was on the radio one day giving instructions to a B-52 gunner, and the next day he was selecting bombing targets, targets long gone by the time the orders came through.

Thus the words of Cicero: "Armed forces abroad are of little use without prudent counsel at home."

We lacked prudent counsel at home.

Eventually, the populace came to the conclusion that it was time to get off the pot. The reason?

"Do not raise troop twice, lest the citizenry become wearied and bitterness arise." Li Quan

And no, I didn't see the reels on the American front. I lived it.

Our military was not defeated.


Our desire to continue a war that would never reach conclusion was terminated.

Three years later, South Vietnam fell from invading North Vietnames forces.

Forces we Americans slaughtered in 1968 and really slaughtered in 1972.

But American forces were not present for the last three years of the existence of South Vietnam.

How in hell can we lose, if we weren't even present?

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by stander

Stander, contrary to what you've been taught, what you believe, what you are convinced of, and what you just know bone deep, ignorance is not a virtue.

Maybe you should give it a rest.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in