Posted on 07/22/2011 12:10:50 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie
Oh and turkic slaves of course — they were predominant and then formed the Mameluk dynasty when they overthrew their rulers
Read up about the Kongo kingdom. That’s were the Congo gets its name from
did a quick glance — but the boundaries of this kingdom is supposed to be along the seashore
>The South Vietnamese were better funded than Ho Chin Minh, but Uncle Ho’s forces were better motivated.
On the other hand, some ARVN units did indeed fight very well.
> (A notable exception was when the US was on the side of the Mujaheddin (forerunners of the Taliban) in the 1980’s).
Actually, the Muj were the forerunners to the Northern Alliance, though the Taliban started out as a bunch of former Muj.
>The lesson: don’t waste your time on a protracted war in a foreign land unless you have motivated allies (e.g the Kurds). Don’t attempt to buy loyalty with money, if you have to, then ensure that the engagement is very short or conducted at arms length.
True.
>Throughout history, who hasn’t? Virtually every would-be conqueror has been stymied in the region.
A myth. AFghanistan was actually part of various empires over the centuries. Alexander and Genghis did indeed succeed in conquering it, though they didn’t find it easy.
>Nah, only the Russians
And even then the Afghans needed US aid in order to win.
>Nah, only the Russians
And even then the Afghans needed US aid in order to win.
I think that myth started with the British “great game” with the Russians. Strangely enough, that “competition” was one-sided. The Russians did not intend to drive through to India. Their aim was the Pacific and then, secondarily to Persia (but that was just a thought).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.