You think Iraq is bad? Look at Chechnya... - Page 5

Az · July 21, 2003, 04:02

I must agree with that sentiment. The soviets were definetly the good guys there.

Giancarlo · July 21, 2003, 04:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

During those ten years Russians build Afghani infrastructure from scratch, their roads, power plants, hospitals, universities, schools, libraries and sh!tloads of other stuff. It was nescessary, because Soviets tried to bring them socialism and it wasn't possible without control over country. So, how much you build there now? Perhaps you can't find builders crazy enough to work there? Perhaps because you control nothing there?

They also raped, pillaged and executed tens of thousands. They didn't build squat. That was a propaganda campaign.

The Mad Monk · July 21, 2003, 04:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb
And you call yourself a communist?

I take it that Azazel is disappointed in the way the Soviets betrayed communism, almost from the beginning.

Serb · July 21, 2003, 04:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

I must agree with that sentiment. The soviets were definetly the good guys there.

No...no...no...Soviets killed, tortued, pillaged and raped (often mans, boys and elders

). They also gased entire cities, used terrible chemical agents, much, much, much more dangerous than harmless agent orange used in Vietnam. Damn, there is a gossip that Soviets used a mini-nuke in Afghanistan. And they never build a thing in Afghanistan, all those roads, plants and buildings you can see now in Afganistan (or remains of those structures) were build thousands years ago by unknown to modern science civilization. Soviets couldn't build a thing in this medieval country, because Soviets were Satans and pure evil.

edit:I forget to add this:

Serb · July 21, 2003, 04:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

They also raped, pillaged and executed tens of thousands. They didn't build squat. That was a propaganda campaign.

I see Euroboy already explained the situation in Afghanistan for you Azazel.

Giancarlo · July 21, 2003, 04:21

Afghanistan doesn't have roads, or tall buildings. By the way the airport in Kabul was built by the US in the 1950s. The hydroelectric dam was also built by the US in the 1950s. These things are rotting. Afghanistan doesn't have any tall buildings to speak of. In fact all the buildings it does have are either mud huts or ones that are built with shoddy materials.

The Mad Monk · July 21, 2003, 04:28

How many tall buidings did Chechnya have?

I mean before the Russians knocked them all down.

Serb · July 21, 2003, 04:28

Quote:

Afghanistan doesn't have roads, or tall buildings. By the way the airport in Kabul was built by the US in the 1950s. The hydroelectric dam was also built by the US in the 1950s. These things are rotting. Afghanistan doesn't have any tall buildings to speak of. In fact all the buildings it does have are either mud huts or ones that are built with shoddy materials.

I see you know a lot about Afghanistan.

Giancarlo · July 21, 2003, 04:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

I see you know a lot about Afghanistan.

Yup... somebody in my family was on assignment there.

Serb · July 21, 2003, 04:35

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
How many tall buidings did Chechnya have?

A lot, and all of them were build by Russians. If you think that Chechens lived in tall buildings and were nice, peacefull people before russians, then you have no idea about the history of this conflict. You have no idea why Russians conquered Chechnya in 19 century. You have no idea about Chechens and Chechnya.

Quote:

I mean before the Russians knocked them all down.

You mean when bunch of crazy fantaics declared independence from Russia, started to cut throats and fill the streets of Grozny with rivers of blood?

Serb · July 21, 2003, 04:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

Yup... somebody in my family was on assignment there.

Let me guess...he taugh uncle Sam's mercinaries how to blow-up properly things that Russians build there , with maximum casualties, right?

Az · July 21, 2003, 04:57

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

I take it that Azazel is disappointed in the way the Soviets betrayed communism, almost from the beginning.

yep... It could've been fixed after WWII, but a certain mustached man was in the way. The bald man that replaced him wasn't a brilliant executive guy, and hardly wasn't a thinker.

I still stand by my words that the soviets were the good guys in Afghanistan.... Women's suffrage, land redistribution... of course the clans would hate that. It stands against everything both the west and the soviet union stood for. It's a shame that the US chose it's short-sighted geo-political goals over the welfare of a country, and it's advancement. sigh.

Giancarlo · July 21, 2003, 05:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Let me guess...he taugh uncle Sam's mercinaries how to blow-up properly things that Russians build there , with maximum casualties, right?

Well I guess an non-profit, non-government organization is equipping those mercenaries with SAM missiles?

Serb · July 21, 2003, 05:09

It wasn't a short-sighted geo-political goal for Yanks. They tried to make Afghanistan the same trap for Soviets as Vietnam was for them and thus destroy the Soviets.

Giancarlo · July 21, 2003, 05:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

yep... It could've been fixed after WWII, but a certain mustached man was in the way. The bald man that replaced him wasn't a brilliant executive guy, and hardly wasn't a thinker.

I still stand by my words that the soviets were the good guys in Afghanistan.... Women's suffrage, land redistribution... of course the clans would hate that. It stands against everything both the west and the soviet union stood for. It's a shame that the US chose it's short-sighted geo-political goals over the welfare of a country, and it's advancement. sigh.

Actually that isn't correct. The Soviets wanted a fresh water port in Pakistan. They didn't give a **** about the Afghanis.

Serb · July 21, 2003, 05:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Well I guess an non-profit, non-government organization is equipping those mercenaries with SAM missiles?

SAMs are not designed for surface targets such as buildings. They are designed for air targets by definition, you

.

Giancarlo · July 21, 2003, 05:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

SAMs are not designed for surface targets such as buildings. They are designed for air targets by definition, you

.

Yes for Hind Helicopters. Idiot.

Az · July 21, 2003, 05:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Actually that isn't correct. The Soviets wanted a fresh water port in Pakistan. They didn't give a **** about the Afghanis.

rright... So they wanted to attack Pakistan as well... ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

.......................

The Mad Monk · July 21, 2003, 05:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb
It wasn't a short-sighted geo-political goal for Yanks. They tried to make Afghanistan the same trap for Soviets as Vietnam was for them and thus destroy the Soviets.

I love this. You know, I'm sure we intended it to become as big a pain in the ass as possible for the Soviets, but destroy them? Weaken, yes, embarrass, certainly, but to expect that the Soviets would be stupid enough to keep hanging on until there was nothing left? Anyone who suggested that would have been laughed right out of the think tanks.

Of course, you're doing the same thing again in Chechnya, and we're not even helping this time.

Az · July 21, 2003, 05:52

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

I love this. You know, I'm sure we intended it to become as big a pain in the ass as possible for the Soviets, but destroy them? Weaken, yes, embarrass, certainly, but to expect that the Soviets would be stupid enough to keep hanging on until there was nothing left? Anyone who suggested that would have been laughed right out of the think tanks.

Of course, you're doing the same thing again in Chechnya, and we're not even helping this time.

you were still siding with the bad guy.

The Mad Monk · July 21, 2003, 05:55

Oh, hush -- I'm trolling Serb, not you.

Az · July 21, 2003, 05:58

.......

You know I am correct, don't you...

The Mad Monk · July 21, 2003, 06:06

"There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests"

Serb · July 21, 2003, 06:07

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I love this. You know, I'm sure we intended it to become as big a pain in the ass as possible for the Soviets, but destroy them? Weaken, yes, embarrass, certainly, but to expect that the Soviets would be stupid enough to keep hanging on until there was nothing left? Anyone who suggested that would have been laughed right out of the think tanks.

I meant that this plan to weaken Soviets via Afghan war was a part of a your bigger plan to destroy the Soviets. And it wasn't in any case a short-sighted geo-political goal for USA. Try to prove me wrong.

Quote:

Of course, you're doing the same thing again in Chechnya, and we're not even helping this time.

You were helping for sure and perhaps still helping.

Serb · July 21, 2003, 06:10

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
"There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests"

An American can not be a freind. They have specific view of friendship (see above).

Serb · July 21, 2003, 06:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Actually that isn't correct. The Soviets wanted a fresh water port in Pakistan.

You are smoking a very cool sh!t, Fez.

Quote:

They didn't give a **** about the Afghanis.

Yeah,

and Yanks cared about Afghanis so much. An Afghanis were so gratefull to Yanks, so gratefull for what they done for people of Afghanistan... so they expressed their gratitude at Sept. 11.

Az · July 21, 2003, 06:27

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
"There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests"

then don't be so upset when people hate you...

The Mad Monk · July 24, 2003, 05:00

All I'm saying is that you have to play the hand your'e dealt. You can't always say how things are going to look down the road, so you have to be prepared to alter your view.

Az · July 24, 2003, 05:26

"Let's support a bunch of tribals and muslim extremists against a secular government. What could happen?"

You've sacrificed the welfare, and the developement of modern society in Afghanistan in order to achieve a geo-political gain. WTG....

The Mad Monk · July 24, 2003, 05:37

Are you suggesting the Russians would have treated them better than they have, say, Chechnya?