Afghanistan

**Fragony** · 11-15-2009, 12:29

Didn't we kinda conquer it, if we chose so nothing is alive there

**Centurion1** · 11-17-2009, 01:58

conquering and subduing are two different things. Conquering afghanistan is easy...... keeping it under peaceful control is the difficult part.

And no it wasnt just russians and americans who have had trouble. The british, parthians, and even Alexander the Great had trouble.

**G. Septimus** · 11-24-2009, 14:53

Afghanistan, was'nt even related to the stories of David, Solomon, Muhamad, nor Jesus.
it is'nt beloved by the gods.
it's people wants freedom. well, Afghanistan even can't control itself, though they are free,,,,,
and the Americans just pour in into somebody else's problems

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Hax** · 11-24-2009, 23:33

I think Vietnam fell apart really because of the desire and motivation. In traditional terms America more than won the war. But since of the lack of home support the north Vietnamese achieved a resounding propaganda victory.

I can't believe people still believe this.

The United States ground forces were morally annihilated. I don't see how a retreat equals victory. Where does this happen? It was a useless fight in the first place, and it's not like it was down out of self-defense.

**Samurai Waki** · 11-25-2009, 01:07

Originally Posted by Hax

I can't believe people still believe this.

The United States ground forces were morally annihilated. I don't see how a retreat equals victory. Where does this happen? It was a useless fight in the first place, and it's not like it was down out of self-defense.

It was both, really. The US Government is fond of saving the world, the US people could for the most part care less, especially when sed task has been botched. What separates Vietnam from Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of popular support, was that nobody except the Military and the President wanted to go into Vietnam; whereas there was much initial support for Afghanistan, the mission has gone awry, and most people wouldn't have cared had Iraq been in the hands of Saddam or not. I mean, it took a direct attack from Japan for us to enter into WWII with any amount of enthusiasm, but we knew who the enemy was.

The Domestic situation did affect the war a lot more than I think you're willing to admit (or know), but the Government screwed up big time in selling it to us, and even themselves. Which meant soldiers were faced with more time in the field, leading to severely decreased moral. We could have won, and I mean that honestly, but we divided ourselves, and were subsequently conquered, so yes, we lost the war.

**Hax** · 11-25-2009, 02:06

The Domestic situation did affect the war a lot more than I think you're willing to admit (or know), but the Government screwed up big time in selling it to us, and even themselves. Which meant soldiers were faced with more time in the field, leading to severely decreased moral. We could have won, and I mean that honestly, but we divided ourselves, and were subsequently conquered, so yes, we lost the war.

Certainly, there was the possibility of victory for the United States, however, strategically speaking, they lost.

EDIT:

It was both, really. The US Government is fond of saving the world

I believe this is a severe oversimplification. I can't imagine the US Government doing this out of good will. I can't.

**Samurai Waki** · 11-25-2009, 07:13

Originally Posted by Hax

I believe this is a severe oversimplification. I can't imagine the US Government doing this out of good will. I can't.

You got me, However Vietnam wasn't a necessity, it wasn't strategically worth what the Military would have been able to get out of it, even if they had fully committed to it.

**Hax** · 11-25-2009, 11:34

Well, I've always looked at the civilian side more than the military side, but even before the invasion of the US military, there had been a proxy war, including the funding of the miserable failure known as Ngo Dinh Diem, whose leadership created major bad will against the United States.

**sulla1982ad** · 06-13-2011, 15:05

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Thats a good point of view. It really presents a fresh view of what might be happening. so youre saying that if a nation invades to improve the Afghanis way of life and government they will only help to destroy it because of the inherent nature of Afghanistan and neighboring nations? Interesting.....

A country never invades another country to inprove its people way of life. There's always some geopolitical reason for doing so. Every invader in history has always offered a noble reason for its actions, there always false.

**Strike For The South** · 06-16-2011, 19:37

If it didn't happen in the last 50 years it never happend

**a completely inoffensive name** · 06-25-2011, 12:14

Yeah in regards to Vietnam, it doesn't really matter how well we kicked their butts when we were there. Even if 20 Viet Cong died for every America soldier they won the war through PR. That's all there is to it. They won, we lost. Our troops pulled out and the Communist's took control of South Vietnam in just a few short years after that. There are no "terms" in which you could claim America won Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

You got me, However Vietnam wasn't a necessity, it wasn't strategically worth what the Military would have been able to get out of it, even if they had fully committed to it.

This might be my bad memory, but I thought they felt Vietnam was extremely important strategically because they still believed in the Domino Theory and were afraid that if Communism wasn't stopped in Vietnam, all of Southeast Asia would fall to it.